Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology advertising guidelines: How likely are member clinics to maintain compliance after resolving their violations?

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) member in vitro fertilization centers' compliance with SART’s advertising guidelines after delayed correction of previous violations.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingInternet.Patient(s)None.Intervention(s)None.Main Outcome Measure(s)Clinics that were cited for noncompliance with SART advertising guidelines in 2019 and exceeded the two-week grace period in correcting their violations were studied. These clinics were rereviewed in 2020, at least 6 months after their initial citation, for violations of SART advertising guidelines in all six categories: supplemental data noncompliance, link to SART Clinical Summary Report and disclaimer statement missing, unsubstantiated claims, statements denigrating other clinics, and claims of superiority.Result(s)In 2019, 44 (27%) of 161 of clinics reviewed by the SART advertising committee had at least one violation that was eventually resolved but not within the two-week grace period. On rereview in 2020, one clinic had not renewed its SART membership and 10 (23%) of the remaining 43 clinics were noted to have violations at the subsequent review. Improper presentation of supplemental data was the most common violation category in both the initial review, 32 (73%) of 44 clinics, and on rereview, 7 (70%) of 10 clinics cited a second time for violations.Conclusion(s)Of the in vitro fertilization clinics with previous violations with delayed correction in 2019, 77% were subsequently compliant when reevaluated in 2020, indicating that advertising committee disciplinary and educational measures were largely effective. The most common citation for both years was maintaining consistent and transparent supplemental data on their websites.