Restorative Reproductive Medicine Restorative Care and Assisted Reproduction
RRM Academy Synopsis
Restorative care had a higher live birth rate than one IVF cycle
In a retrospective cohort preprint without peer review, 40 out of 100 of 193 Dublin couples had a live birth with RRM care in 2019, against 24 out of 100 UK registry IVF cycles.
Key Findings
- Among 193 couples who started the NeoFertility treatment plan in 2019, 78 had a live birth, a rate of 40.4% (78/193).
- The UK registry (HFEA) reported 7,920 live births among 32,502 couples using their own eggs and partner sperm in a fresh cycle (women 42 and younger): 24.4% per treatment cycle.
- The authors report that the difference was significant at p < 0.0001.
- Live birth rates were highest for women under 35 years: 59% in the restorative group and 31% in the IVF data.
- The twin birth rate was 2.5% (2/78) in the restorative group and 7% in the IVF data. There were no deliveries before 35 weeks and no baby below 2,000g.
Interpretation
This retrospective cohort compares the clinic's STORRM data with national HFEA IVF data. The restorative plan allowed up to 12 months of trying. The IVF figure is for one cycle. The authors note that an argument can be made that this is not equivalent. Their restorative group averaged 36.4 years of age, 1.5 years older than the IVF group. Gestation and birth weight were reported for the restorative group but not for IVF.
RRM Context
The authors propose restorative reproductive medicine as a prerequisite option before IVF for suitable patients. They call for prospective comparisons. The library holds a later peer-reviewed analysis of this clinic's 2019 cohort. See the JRRM 2025 outcomes comparison.
Abstract
The use of IVF and related procedures has offered opportunities for couples to conceive who otherwise would remain childless. This technology is often viewed as the only option but is very expensive and not highly effective. ln an effort to improve access to care, governments are attempting to provide funding. In Ireland for example the Health Service Executive (HSE) has recently made IVF funding available through Regional Fertility Hubs. for couples who qualify. However, this policy has threatened a less invasive approach available in Ireland that can help many couples before IVF is employed. We propose that a newly emerging “medical treatment process” called Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM), combined with methods or apps that track biomarkers of the menstrual cycle as a prerequisite option for appropriate patients. To illustrate the effectiveness, we compared live birth rates from an established Irish RRM clinic that uses the ChartNeo app to HFEA (Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority) data, both from 2019. RRM treatment had a live birth rate of 40.4% compared to 24.4% per treatment cycle for IVF (P>0.0001). RRM twin pregnancy rate was 2.5% compared to 7% for IVF. RRM babies were usually full term and normal birth weight. Therefore, RRM is less expensive, less invasive, and more effective than IVF for most patients. This merits further evaluation and support by the HSE and other global authorities guiding health policy.
Read the guides
-
RRM Success Rates: What the Published Evidence Shows
RRM live-birth rates across 14 peer-reviewed cohorts, 11 countries, 2008-2026. Crude and adjusted-cumulative outcomes with follow-up windows, by condition and age group.
-
Fertility Awareness Methods Compared
Clinician-reviewed comparison of fertility awareness-based methods (Billings, Creighton, Sensiplan, Marquette, Standard Days, apps). Every effectiveness figure cited and labeled by metric.
