Restorative Reproductive Medicine · Restorative Care and Assisted Reproduction
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.
Topics
By this author
Diagnostic Criteria and Classification · Terminology and Definitions
Definition of Infertility and Indications for Fertility Evaluation: Consensus Document
Minjeur M et al., 2026 · Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine · Free to read
Infertility is a clinical condition that is recognized by the symptom of an inability to conceive through sexual intercourse or to sustain a pregnancy, with that symptom indicating underlying male and/or female pathology. This definition of infertility was developed through a structured, consensus-informed process involving broad stakeholder engagement. Initially, multiple definitions currently used by various medical professional organizations were reviewed, and a definition document was drafted and submitted to the Board of Directors of the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine (IIRRM). All IIRRM members were invited to provide feedback on the draft. Approximately 2,500 individuals and 44 organizations from 92 countries were then invited to review the proposed document, representing clinical, scientific, patient, policy, and advocacy perspectives. Submitted comments were reviewed thematically, with suggested revisions evaluated for clarity, clinical relevance, inclusiveness, and consistency with contemporary restorative reproductive medicine. Following this review, 3 substantive changes, 18 minor changes, and 15 citation corrections were incorporated into the final draft which resulted in a revised definition intended to better reflect the medical, social, and practical realities of modern infertility evaluation and care. Final approval by the IIRRM Board of Directors was unanimous.
Evaluation · Diagnostic Workup
Real World Fertility Evaluation & Care Prior to In Vitro Fertilization: Care Gaps That Could be Addressed by Restorative Reproductive Medicine: A Retrospective 5-Million Patient Claims Based Care-Gap Analysis
Parnell T et al., 2026 · Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine · Free to read
To evaluate adherence to published American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and American Urological Association (AUA) infertility evaluation and treatment recommendations among commercially insured infertility patients who subsequently underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF), and to assess whether observed care gaps support the need for a restorative reproductive medical framework. A retrospective claims-based analysis was performed using MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounter Data between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2024. Approximately five million commercially insured members were evaluated. Patients with infertility-related diagnoses who subsequently underwent IVF were identified. Claims were analyzed for evidence of selected diagnostic testing, medical treatment, or surgical interventions recommended by ASRM or AUA/ASRM guidance for specific infertility-related diagnoses before IVF initiation. Cumulative adherence rates were assessed up to nine months following initial infertility diagnosis and compared with the timing of initiating IVF. IVF initiation started early and consistently preceded completion of most recommended evaluations and treatments. By 3 months, the proportion of patients with IVF initiation ranged from 28% to 39% across different infertility-related diagnoses, while adherence to most recommended interventions remained low. Overall, by 9 months, IVF utilization had reached 70–85%, while many recommended evaluations and treatments remained below 40% adherence, with several interventions remaining below 15%. Observed care gaps (percentage of patients receiving IVF prior to other evaluation or treatment recommendations) ranged from approximately 13% to 78% for most recommended evaluations and treatments, with several measures demonstrating gaps over 50% of patients. These findings suggest substantial divergence between published infertility-care recommendations and observed practice patterns. From the perspective of restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), the gaps are clinically important because many recommended steps are directed toward identifying, correcting, restoring, or preserving reproductive function and anatomy before offering or initiating IVF treatment. Limitations to these data include lack of individualized patient medical data, preferences, or circumstances, and not capturing any treatment that was not reimbursed by commercial insurance (i.e., any cash payment for services). In addition, the recommendations assessed have variable levels of underlying evidence, and likely vary in the level of their acceptance among practicing clinicians. Many commercially insured infertility patients progressed to IVF without documented evidence of diagnostic evaluation or therapeutic interventions recommended in ASRM and AUA/ASRM guidance. These findings raise important questions regarding the implementation of adequate evaluation before IVF and the extent to which patients receive meaningful opportunities for diagnosis-directed treatment of potentially reversible causes of infertility. The findings further suggest an important role for RRM as a quality-of-care framework focused on comprehensive evaluation, correction of underlying dysfunction, preservation of reproductive anatomy and physiology, and optimization of patient-centered fertility care, prior to considering IVF.
History of the Discipline · Origins of Restorative Practice
Understanding Restorative Reproductive Medicine
Boyle P, 2025 · J Restorative Reprod Med · Free to read
Recently, editorials have been published in reproductive medical journals that have misunderstood and misrepresented the origin and meaning of “restorative reproductive medicine” (RRM).1,2 This term was first used in 2000 when a group of physicians established the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine (IIRRM, iirrm.org ). I am a founding member and am currently president of the IIRRM. The IIRRM was founded as a secular, not a faith-based organization. We adhere to time-honoured medical principles to understand and treat underlying factors responsible for infertility. We are always seeking to improve our diagnosis and treatment of those factors, the training of clinicians who offer RRM, and the quality of clinical practice of RRM. We believe that in the clinical realm, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is often offered quickly without sufficient efforts first made to help couples conceive naturally. IVF was originally developed to treat patients with bilateral tubal occlusion who could not conceive through sexual intercourse. Most patients who undergo IVF today do not have blocked fallopian tubes. Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) was developed for patients with severe male factor infertility. Most patients who undergo ICSI today do not have severe male factor infertility. Remarkably, the most recent Cochrane review of IVF indicates ongoing uncertainty about whether IVF improves the live birth rate compared to expectant management for previously untreated couples with “unexplained” subfertility.3 I am an active RRM clinician since 1998 and I have treated thousands of couples. When patients present for fertility treatment, I do not ask them what religion, political view, or philosophy they support, because that is irrelevant to people who want a solution for their infertility. If they have a condition that is better treated by IVF, I tell them that at the first appointment. If natural conception is possible with RRM, I explain what is involved and outline the treatment process which can take up to 12 cycles (most often less) to reach a healthy ongoing pregnancy, or a full course of treatment. RRM honours patient autonomy. We do not seek to prohibit patient access to IVF. Patients seek us out. RRM expands their choices and options. Many of my patients were previously seen in fertility clinics that offer IVF. Patients repeatedly tell me they did not receive the same depth of investigation or non-IVF treatment in the IVF clinics. I recently received these comments from patients, “RRM empowered us in our fertility journey. It provided a personalised approach. We are so grateful.” And “even if we didn’t conceive, we’d never regret trying RRM as my health improved immeasurably…” The World Health Organization states that “Infertility is a disease of the male or female reproductive system defined by the failure to achieve a pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse”.4 As RRM physicians, we respectfully suggest a slight but essential alteration: “Infertility is a medical condition defined by failure to achieve a pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular sexual intercourse without contraception, which is caused by one or more underlying diseases and conditions involving the male or female reproductive system.” This definition indicates that infertility is not a singular condition to be treated solely by treatments to generate a pregnancy and birth. Rather, it is “a canary in the coal mine” for human health, indicating the need to identify and address underlying health concerns. 5,6 As RRM physicians and clinicians we have training and backgrounds that allow us to treat infertility patients with a focus on treatments and approaches that restore and optimize natural function. The specialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility has extensive training with a particular focus on IVF and treatments to improve the success of IVF. But we can and should be in agreement to offer patients evidence-based information and treatments that meet the needs and preferences of patients. Further research is needed and is currently ongoing on patient-relevant questions, such as: How does an RRM evaluation differ in process and results from a fertility evaluation before initiating IVF? How do the outcomes of RRM and IVF compare on multiple levels including live birth rates, premature delivery, patient satisfaction, health improvement, and repeat successful births?7 For the sake of our patients with infertility, let us strive to be objective about the scientific facts, and meet all patients with respect. Surely as we challenge and learn from one another and strive for excellence, the patients will be the ultimate beneficiaries.
Outcomes and Effectiveness · Live Birth Rates
Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) outcomes compared to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) for the treatment of infertility: a retrospective evaluation of a 2019 clinic cohort compared to one cycle of IVF
Boyle P et al., 2025 · J Restorative Reprod Med · Free to read
Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is an emerging approach that can be used to treat infertility. Our goal was to compare RRM to IVF outcomes in 2019. We conducted a retrospective clinic-based analysis and referenced it against publicly available data from IVF registries, as published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) in the USA, and the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), in the UK. Data from 2019 was collected from routine medical records following treatment at one clinic in Dublin, Ireland during 2019. We defined the demographics, diagnoses, and treatments and then calculated the crude percentages of conception, live birth, multiple pregnancy, prematurity, and low birth weight. These results were benchmarked against data reported in IVF databases. 249 couples had at least one RRM consultation, 187 committed to the RRM treatment program and met the inclusion criteria. The average female age for all included patients was 36.4 years and couples were trying to conceive for a mean of 32.2 months. Of the 187 patients/couples who underwent treatment, 28% had a previous live birth, 30% had a previous miscarriage, and 42% had never conceived;19% (35/187) had previously had IVF, 2.3 + 1.6 IVF cycles per couple. Of the 187 couples, 52% (98/187) conceived, 41% (77/187) had a documented live birth. There were 75 singletons and 2 sets of twins, producing 79 babies. Time to conception for live birth patients averaged 12 + 8 months. The average birth weight was 3422g (7lb 9oz) and average weeks’ gestation at delivery was 39 + 1.5 weeks. 4.0% (3/75) of singleton babies were premature (33-37 weeks) and none were very premature (< 32 weeks). 5.3% (4/75) of singleton babies had low birth weight (< 2,500g). When we compared births across age groups, the RRM percentages with live birth were comparable to those in a single cycle of IVF with multiple subsequent embryo transfers, and greater than a single cycle of IVF with a single embryo transfer. Furthermore, RRM babies had fewer multiple pregnancies, and singleton RRM pregnancies had less than half as many premature deliveries compared to IVF, (6.5% RRM all pregnancies or 4.0% RRM, singleton pregnancies vs 14.4% SART, all pregnancies or 11.8% CDC, singleton pregnancies). 74% (26/35) of couples who remained in contact with us and tried for another pregnancy had a repeat successful live birth. In our clinic, a comprehensive RRM assessment and treatment followed by up to 12 optimal cycles of timed intercourse resulted in a 41% live birth rate (crude rate). We propose that using RRM may improve a couple’s chance of having a healthy pregnancy and reduce the demand for IVF. Furthermore, RRM reduces the risk of multiple pregnancy, low birth weight and premature delivery compared to IVF. The majority of couples who sought a second live birth were successful. Limitations and Future directions: This is a retrospective analysis with a small number of RRM patients, compared to large IVF databases of patients using one cycle of IVF, including all transfers made from the IVF retrieval. While useful for benchmarking, conclusions are limited by sample size, and the lack of relevant prognostic data (other than female age) for the IVF patients. Larger prospective studies with full prognostic data are needed to make a proper comparison of RRM and IVF outcomes.
Related research
Restorative Care and Assisted Reproduction · Outcome Comparisons
The effectiveness and safety of restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) compared to assisted reproductive technology or medically unassisted conception: a systematic review
Ganci D et al., 2026 · Fertility and Sterility · Free to read
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.
Restorative Frameworks · NeoFertility
Healthy Singleton Pregnancies From Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) After Failed IVF
Boyle PC et al., 2018 · Front Med (Lausanne) · Free full text on PubMed Central
To determine the live birth rate for patients who chose to undergo treatment with Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) after previous IVF (includes ICSI). To look at birth outcomes with RRM after IVF, particularly rates of twin and higher order pregnancies, premature birth, low birth weight, and potential cost savings achieved with RRM. Two outpatient clinics in Ireland providing advanced RRM treatment of infertility. All patients presenting between January 2004 and January 2010, with a history of infertility and previous IVF treatment were included if they proceeded beyond the initial consultation and began treatment. Main outcome is live birth per couple calculated using life table analysis. 403 patients met the study criteria, among which 74 had a subsequent live birth. These women had significant negative predictive characteristics for healthy live birth including: advanced reproductive age (average 37.2 years), an average of 5.8 years of infertility with 2.1 (range 1-9) previous IVF attempts, with only 5% having previously had a live birth from IVF. Despite these undesirable prognostic indicators, the overall RRM live birth rate was 32.1% (crude 18.4%). Women aged 35-38 had a live birth rate of 37.5% (crude 23.6%) and older women over 40 had a live birth rate of 27.4% (crude 16.0%). The average birth weight was 3374g (7lb 7oz) with 92% being born at 37+ weeks and no very low birth weight babies. There was only one twin pregnancy in the study population; the potential health care savings for avoidable multiple pregnancies in these patients was estimated at £205 672 (USD$284 915). Patients who have already tried IVF can achieve comparable live birth outcomes with RRM compared to another cycle of IVF. RRM has a low risk of twin or multiple births, and very good neonatal outcomes with a potential cost savings to the health care system.
NaProTechnology · Cumulative Pregnancy Rates
Restorative reproductive medicine for infertility in two family medicine clinics in New England, an observational study
Stanford JB et al., 2021 · BMC Pregnancy Childbirth · Free full text on PubMed Central
Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) seeks to identify and correct underlying causes and factors contributing to infertility and reproductive dysfunction. Many components of RRM are highly suitable for primary care practice. We studied the outcomes amongst couples who received restorative reproductive medicine treatment for infertility in a primary care setting. Two family physicians in Massachusetts trained in a systematic approach to RRM (natural procreative technology, or NaProTechnology) treated couples with infertility. We retrospectively reviewed the characteristics, diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes for all couples treated during the years 1989 to 2014. We compared pregnancy and live birth by clinical characteristics using Kaplan-Meier analysis. We employed the Fleming-Harrington weighted Renyi test or the logrank test to compare the cumulative proportion with pregnancy or with live birth. Among 370 couples beginning treatment for infertility, the mean age was 34.8 years, the mean prior time trying to conceive was 2.7 years, and 27% had a prior live birth. The mean number of diagnoses per couple was 4.9. Treatment components included fertility tracking with the Creighton Model FertilityCare System (80%); medications to enhance cervical mucus production (81%), to stimulate ovulation (62%), or to support the luteal phase (75%); and referral to female laparoscopy by a surgeon specializing in endometriosis (46%). The cumulative live birth rate at 2 years was 29% overall; this was significantly higher for women under age 35 (34%), and for women with body mass index < 25 (40%). There were 2 sets of twins and no higher-order multiple gestations. Of the 63 births with data available, 58 (92%) occurred at term. Family physicians can provide a RRM approach for infertility to identify underlying causes and promote healthy term live births. Younger women and women with body mass index < 25 are more likely to have a live birth.
Potential increase of the U.S. total fertility rate resulting from restorative treatment of unresolved subfertility: a simulation study
Stanford JB et al., 2026 · Frontiers in Reproductive Health · Free full text on PubMed Central
Background The total fertility rate (TFR) in most developed countries has been declining for decades. In the United States (U.S.), the total fertility rate has remained below replacement level since 2007. Subfertility affects at least 15% of women or couples over their reproductive lifespan and contributes to reduced TFR. Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is a medically based approach to subfertility care that can be delivered in primary care settings to increase live birth rates. Objective To estimate the theoretical impact of use of RRM among subfertile couples in the United States. Methods We conducted a simulation study. Model inputs included the number of women of reproductive age in the United States by 5-year age groups; current age-specific and total fertility rates; the proportion of women in each age group with subfertility; estimated spontaneous live birth rates among women with subfertility; and age-specific crude live birth rates with RRM treatment. We evaluated fifteen scenarios including sensitivity analyses: two different varying assumptions for spontaneous conception (25% vs. 50%), two levels of RRM utilization among subfertile women (20% vs. 50%), three different estimates of the number of subfertile women who would be potentially eligible for RRM treatment, and 4 different levels of effectiveness (live birth) from RRM treatment. Results The baseline TFR in the United States was 1.77 during 2015-2019, and 13.5% of women ages 20-44 were estimated to have subfertility. In a conservative scenario (50% spontaneous births; 20% RRM utilization; married women trying to conceive for at least 12 months, 20.7% RRM live births), the TFR increased to 1.79, representing a 1.0% relative increase (absolute +0.02). In an optimistic scenario (25% spontaneous births; 50% RRM utilization; all subfertile women), the TFR increased to 2.02, a 14.5% relative increase (absolute +0.26), approaching replacement-level fertility. Conclusion Simulation results suggest that expanding access to RRM within primary care settings could meaningfully increase the U.S. TFR, by reducing unresolved subfertility. Realizing this potential would require policy and health system changes to address workforce capacity, insurance coverage, and equitable access. These findings underscore the potential contribution of non-IVF fertility care pathways in addressing population-level fertility decline.
Restorative Reproductive Medicine › Restorative Care and Assisted Reproduction › Outcome Comparisons · Assisted Reproduction › Outcomes and Effectiveness › Live Birth Rates · Fertility Awareness › Effectiveness › Comparative Effectiveness
Phil C Boyle, Craig Turczynski
Philip Boyle, Phillip Boyle, P Boyle, C Turczynski
DOI 10.20944/preprints202401.0624.v1 10.20944/preprints202401.0624.v1 Boyle et al. 2024, Boyle 2024