Consumer input for a review on the different treatments used to stimulate the ovaries of women having in vitro fertilisation (IVF)

Skills / interests: Consumer (public, patient, carer) input

Methodological skills / interests: Comparing multiple interventions (network meta-analysis and overviews)

This review evaluates the effectiveness and safety of the various techniques for stimulating the ovaries to produce eggs for use in IVF and compares the results with each other in network meta-analyses. The techniques are ranked according to their comparative effectiveness. 

This is a quite technical review. The task does not require any special or medical knowledge; in fact we would like to have the views of someone who does not have a clinical background as we want to know if this review is clear to a lay or non-medical reader. The main task is to comment on the wording of the review's plain language summary. Is it easy to understand? Are medical or technical terms explained well? Is it clear to you what the review found? 

You are welcome to comment also on the Abstract and indeed any other review section if you see anything that is not clear to you.


We estimate that you should be able to complete this task in no more than 90 minutes, and your contribution will be acknowledged in the review. 

Ideal applicant

It would be helpful if you have had lived experience of IVF, or know someone who has experienced infertility. We are looking for someone who can give us an honest assessment of the words used in the review, and can suggest how this can be improved.

Think you've got what it takes to get the job done for Helen?

Log in
to respond

Questions & comments