Department of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Fertility Disorders, University of Heidelberg, Vossstrasse 9, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany. petra.frank-herrmann@med.uni-heidelberg.deROR
Peipert et al. (1) claim that restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) originated as a political and religious movement with the purpose to limit access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). In so doing, they mischaracterize the origin, development, and aims of RRM, as articulated by the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine, founded in 2000. They do not refer to any peer-reviewed medical literature published by clinicians and researchers working to develop RRM. Objecting that certain political or economic interests promote RRM (or, alternatively, IVF) does not constitute the basis for an evidence-based scientific critique or discussion. Thus, their editorial falls short of a serious effort to understand RRM scientifically.
Frank-Herrmann restorative reproductive medicine autonomy response, RRM reproductive choice informed consent rebuttal, restorative reproductive medicine patient autonomy defense, Frank-Herrmann Gnoth Freundl fertility sterility letter, restorative reproductive medicine ethical defense, informed consent infertility treatment RRM response, reproductive autonomy RRM clinical practice defense, fertility awareness based methods reproductive medicine ethics, RRM infertility informed consent patient choice, restorative reproductive medicine criticism response letter
PMID 41475698 41475698 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.10.014 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.10.014
Cite this article
Peipert, B. J., Kuhlman, J. T., & Feinberg, E. C. (2026). Reply of the authors: "Response to "The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent"" by Frank-Herrmann et al. Fertility and sterility, 125(1), 179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.10.029
Peipert BJ, Kuhlman JT, Feinberg EC. Reply of the authors: "Response to "The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent"" by Frank-Herrmann et al. Fertil Steril. 2026;125(1):179. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.10.029
Peipert, B. J., et al. "Reply of the authors: "Response to "The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent"" by Frank-Herrmann et al." Fertility and sterility, vol. 125, no. 1, 2026, pp. 179.
Related articles
Ethics/PhilosophyInfertility TreatmentProfessional DebateInformed Decision Making
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2026·Fertility and Sterility
Current strategies for the assessment and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss are discussed. This replaces the previous document, titled, "Evaluation and treatment a committee opinion," last published in 2012.
This narrative review examines the evidence for medical optimization of inflammatory conditions, vitamin deficiencies, endocrine disorders, immune dysregulation, oligo-ovulation, and luteal phase factors to improve fertility outcomes in women attempting to conceive through natural or timed intercourse. Overall, there is a paucity of data with respect to these categories among patients pursuing timed intercourse, precluding our ability to draw strong recommendations. However, there is strong evidence supporting treatment of endocrine disorders, specifically overt thyroid dysfunction and hyperprolactinemia, as well as oligo-ovulation. Conversely, treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism is not recommended. The current data are insufficient to support empiric use of antiinflammatory medications, corticosteroids, thyroid hormones, or vitamins or supplements to improve chances of pregnancy in a general infertility population.
Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) aims to restore fertility by diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility. RRM is frequently promoted as an alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite uncertainty regarding its comparative effectiveness and safety. Where delayed childbearing and infertility are becoming more common, reliance on optimization of natural physiology alone may delay effective treatment and compromise reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the current evidence comparing RRM to either ART or unassisted conception is, therefore, essential to inform clinical practice, guideline development, and shared decision-making for patients experiencing infertility. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RRM approaches, evaluated as a whole, rather than as individual components, compared with ART and medically unassisted conception in couples experiencing infertility. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine from inception to 28 November 2025. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating reproductive and safety outcomes of RRM as a unified treatment, compared with either ART or expectant management (attempted medically unassisted conception). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We retrieved 724 records, of which 16 studies underwent full-text review. No RCTs or comparative observational studies were identified. All 16 full-text studies were excluded for an ineligible study design (no control group); most were cohort studies in which all participants underwent RRM. Ten studies reported reproductive outcomes; nine of these made claims regarding the benefits or effectiveness of RRM. None of these claims were supported by the study designs used, as the lack of a comparison group precludes reliable estimation of treatment effects. Consequently, these studies cannot provide valid estimates of RRM success rates, nor permit any meaningful inference about its effectiveness relative to unassisted conception or ART. Large-scale RCTs or prospective cohort studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes are required to inform evidence-based fertility guidelines. There are no comparative studies to support reliable estimates of the safety and effectiveness of RRM compared with ART or medically unassisted conception for couples experiencing infertility.