Research
Minjeur M et al., 2026·Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine
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.
Research
Parnell T et al., 2026·Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine
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.
Research
Parnell TA et al., 2026·Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine
This study examined public attitudes toward restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) using secondary analysis and comparative reporting of two independent surveys conducted in the United States. It also explored preferences among individuals with fertility issues and the general population’s views on treatment options. A secondary analysis was conducted using data from two nationally representative online surveys, designed and administered by organizations independent of the researchers, whose samples demographically reflected the U.S. adult population. The surveys—conducted by J.L. Partners (N=1002) and McLaughlin & Associates (N=1000)—assessed familiarity, acceptance, and attitudes toward IVF and RRM. The J.L. Partners survey focused on IVF, including medical risks, creation and use of embryos, preimplantation genetic testing, arguments for government oversight of IVF, and overall attitudes toward IVF. The McLaughlin survey focused on comparative descriptions of IVF and RRM. Pearson’s Chi-Square tests of independence were used to assess differences in response distributions across demographic subgroups and between survey items of interest. Overall, there was strong consistency of responses to items that were similar in the two surveys. Approximately 80% supported IVF initially, although both surveys found respondents to have limited knowledge about IVF procedures. In contrast, 33% supported RRM initially, with 43% having never heard of RRM. After learning more about the characteristics of RRM and IVF approaches, as presented within the surveys, preference shifted toward approaches consistent with RRM (e.g., 69% preference for an approach for natural fertilization in a woman’s body vs. 17% for fertilization in a lab). Respondents prioritized baby health (74%) over cost (13%) and time to conceive (6%). Many IVF patients were concerned about undiagnosed health issues and being rushed into IVF. Overall, 70% wanted treatments that addressed underlying causes; nearly half were unaware of any medical risks of IVF. Stated support for IVF declined by 10% overall after presentation of medical risks, questions about the creation and use of embryos and genetic testing, and arguments to support government oversight of IVF. Both surveys showed strong support for patient access to full information about treatments and treatment processes. While IVF is widely accepted, these national survey data suggest preferences for fertility treatments that prioritize diagnosis and restoration of natural reproductive health, which is the focus of restorative reproductive medicine. Comprehensive assessment, restoration of healthy function, transparency regarding treatment processes, and sensitivity to ethical concerns in patient care reflect important public values. Greater awareness and public education, improved consent, more research, and ongoing surveys are needed to inform public health strategies and meet patient needs in fertility care.
Velmahos AH et al., 2026·Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine
To evaluate the extent to which a history of infertility is associated with adherence to specific diets among reproductive-aged females. Between 2017–2023, 7,227 North American female pregnancy planners aged 21-45 years enrolled in PRESTO (Pregnancy Study Online), a preconception cohort study. Participants completed self-administered baseline questionnaires during preconception. Infertility history, 1) self-reported 12-month clinical infertility, 2) history of visiting a clinician for an infertility work-up, and/or 3) clinician-identified cause of infertility (e.g., ovulatory or tubal). Adherence to specific diets, including vegetarian, vegan, Mediterranean, Paleo, Weight Watchers®, ketogenic, dairy free, gluten free, Atkins®, South Beach®, Zone®, raw foods, or other at baseline. Multivariable log-binomial regression models estimated the prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for age, income, and body mass index (BMI). The percentage of participants with a history of infertility was 26% based on the 12-month clinical infertility definition, 30% based on visiting a physician for infertility evaluation, and 26% based on an infertility diagnosis following a physician visit. Overall adherence to any particular diet was low (4.6% vegetarian, 2.8% ketogenic, 1.7% Weight Watchers®, 1.4% Mediterranean, 1.3% vegan, 0.8% Paleo, <0.8%); 86.6% reported not adhering to any particular diet. A history of 12-month clinical infertility was associated with lower adherence to vegetarian (PR=0.78; 95% CI: 0.60-1.03), Paleo (PR=0.43; 95% CI: 0.19-0.98), and Weight Watchers® (PR=0.55; 95% CI: 0.34-0.91) diets. An infertility history involving a medical work-up was associated with a higher prevalence of adherence to a ketogenic diet (PR=1.56; 95% CI: 1.17-2.09). Participants whose infertility was attributed to ovulatory or tubal causes were nearly two times more likely to adhere to a ketogenic diet (PR=2.01; 95% CI: 1.38-2.94; PR=2.22; 95% CI: 1.09-4.49, respectively). The cross-sectional design cannot establish temporality or causality. Data on dietary patterns and infertility history were self-reported, which can introduce misclassification. Generalizability may be limited because participants were pregnancy planners not using fertility treatments; participants were also more likely to be non-Hispanic White and of higher socioeconomic status than the general population. The ketogenic diet was more prevalent among females with an infertility history, while vegetarian, Paleo, and Weight Watchers® diets were less prevalent. These associations mirror the results of studies evaluating the reverse relationship, suggesting that some patients with infertility seek information for behavioral modifications via evidence-based medicine.