Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
LetterCorrespondence

Re: Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice

Eric Scott Sills, David J. Walsh and Anthony P.H. Walsh
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine January 2009, 22 (1) 94-95; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2009.01.080190
Eric Scott Sills
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David J. Walsh
MD, MRCOG
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony P.H. Walsh
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editor: We read with interest the paper by Stanford et al1 describing results from infertility treatment using a “systematic medical approach for optimizing physiologic conditions for conception.” Although the authors make some good basic observations and their minimalist approach will no doubt appeal to many patients, extolling “Natural Procreative Technology” (NPT) as a general treatment philosophy for infertility is worrisome at several levels.

Considerable experience in subspecialty infertility practice has confirmed the age of the female is the single most important factor influencing a couple's reproductive outcome.2 Early diagnosis and treatment is therefore critical to optimize success. But NPT's investigation phase alone requires 4 months to complete, and total deployment of NPT consumes 2 years. With their “biological clocks” ticking, it is not surprising that >50% of NPT patients dropped out.

Sadly, many probably never go back to their primary care provider. Patient satisfaction with the referring doctor is often related to timely referral to the fertility specialist. Some patients who conceive after in vitro fertilization (IVF), particularly if their primary physician failed to facilitate a prompt subspecialty referral, express deep resentment due to the patient's perception that their referral was needlessly slow.3 This patient frustration has even triggered formal legal action seeking damages against doctors thought responsible for delayed infertility treatment.4

Studies of effectiveness of NPT against IVF in couples with unexplained infertility are welcomed. But curiously, Stanford et al assessed efficacy by cohort rather than the standard “per-cycle” pregnancy rate methodology, as followed by recognized registries in Europe and the United States. These patient registries have been collecting data on per-cycle pregnancy rates for many years. One reason they do not use longitudinal cohort analysis is because the further in time from intervention that a pregnancy occurs, the less likely that it actually resulted from treatment.5 Although a cohort approach can have merit, its use by Stanford et al puts their conclusions outside the mainstream of relevant datasets and greatly diminishes the impact of their work.

It would be unfair to discount the potential usefulness of diagnostic tests collected during NPT. Cervical mucous monitoring, urinary luteinizing hormone surge testing, and reviewing timed intercourse schedules are all important patient education interventions and probably do help some women conceive. Yet the net effect of NPT seems closely allied to expectant management, reminiscent of a distant era where pregnancy rates rarely drifted above 25% per cycle.

The application of a structured infertility treatment program for use in general practice settings to improve care is not entirely new.6 However, we strongly disagree with diverting 2 years of an infertility patient's time into a scheme where per-cycle pregnancy rates are unknown and where most patients, even when ideally selected, will quit treatment.

Providing comprehensive information to patients about treatment options is a cornerstone of the patient–physician relationship. NPT may warrant consideration for patients who find the advanced reproductive technologies too invasive, too expensive, or inconsistent with their personal beliefs. But given the known efficacy of treatment after proper application of the advanced reproductive technologies, we believe this passive approach is poorly suited for most cases where female age is ≥35 years old. In the report by Stanford et al, it seems that more than half of the study patients agree.

Notes

  • The above letter was referred to the authors of the article in question, who offer the following reply.

References

  1. ↵
    Stanford JB, Parnell TA, Boyle PC. Outcomes from treatment of infertility with natural procreative technology in an Irish general practice. J Am Board Fam Med 2008; 21: 375–84.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Coccia ME, Rizzello F. Ovarian reserve. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008; 1127: 27–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Copperman KB, Schertz JC, Witkin G, Sandler B, Brodman M, Copperman AB. Patients’ return to referring physicians and its relation to their infertility duration. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2007; 16: 1012–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    Squire AS. IVF wife sues over delays that made her use donor eggs. London Daily Mail. 2008 September 4: A5.
  5. ↵
    Dickey RP. Clinical as well as statistical knowledge is needed when determining how subfertility trials are analysed. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 2495–6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Emslie C, Grimshaw J, Templeton A. Do clinical guidelines improve general practice management and referral of infertile couples? BMJ 1993; 306: 1728–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: 22 (1)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 22, Issue 1
January-February 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Re: Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Re: Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice
Eric Scott Sills, David J. Walsh, Anthony P.H. Walsh
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2009, 22 (1) 94-95; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2009.01.080190

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Re: Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice
Eric Scott Sills, David J. Walsh, Anthony P.H. Walsh
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2009, 22 (1) 94-95; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2009.01.080190
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Notes
    • References
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Hepatitis C Treatment Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Among Primary Care Providers—Los Angeles County, 2023
  • Re: Factors Influencing Patient Confidence in Screening Mammography
  • Re: Physician and Advanced Practice Clinician Burnout in Rural and Urban Settings
Show more Correspondence

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire