12 papers reviewed
NaProTechnology Outcomes
2025 · retrospective cohort · 1 of 12
Natural procreative technology (NaProTechnology) for infertility: take-home baby rate and clinical outcomes in a 5-year single-center cohort of 1,310 couples
Espinel-Bermudez MC et al. · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Crude take-home baby rate of 35.3%, adjusted cumulative rate of 62.1% over ~11 months. Success by age: 83.7% (18-30), 53.3% (36-40), 24.4% (40+). Largest real-world NaPro cohort to date.
Read the paper ↗2008 · cohort · 2 of 12
Outcomes from treatment of infertility with natural procreative technology in an Irish general practice
Stanford JB, Parnell TA, Boyle PC · Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
In 1,072 Irish couples (mean infertility duration 5.6 years, 33% prior ART), crude live birth rate was 25.5%, adjusted (life-table) rate was 52.8% after up to 2 years of NaPro treatment. Comparable to ART cohort studies.
Read the paper ↗2012 · cohort · 3 of 12
Natural procreative technology for infertility and recurrent miscarriage outcomes in a Canadian family practice
Tham E, Schliep K, Stanford JB · Canadian Family Physician
Cumulative adjusted live birth rate of 66% (crude 38%) in a Canadian family practice setting. 24% conceived with CrMS instruction alone, 69% with added NaPro medical treatment, 8% after surgery. All births were singletons.
Read the paper ↗2022 · review · 4 of 12
How NaProTechnology compares with Assisted Reproductive Technology
Various · Medicina y Etica (Scielo)
Comparative review finding NaPro and ART represent different paradigms with different evaluations and treatments. NaPro success rates reflect natural conception without the multi-fetal pregnancy risks of ART.
Read the paper ↗2018 · case series · 5 of 12
Healthy singleton pregnancies from restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) after failed IVF
Stanford JB et al. · Linacre Quarterly
Women who had previously failed IVF were able to achieve healthy singleton pregnancies through RRM approaches, demonstrating that RRM can succeed even after ART failure.
Read the paper ↗2021 · observational cohort · 6 of 12
Restorative reproductive medicine for infertility in two family medicine clinics in New England: an observational study
Strawn E et al. · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
RRM treatment in family medicine settings achieved live birth rates comparable to prior NaPro studies. Birth outcomes: 92% delivered at 37+ weeks, average birth weight 3374g, only 1.4% twins.
Read the paper ↗2025 · systematic review · 7 of 12
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. · Fertility and Sterility
No RCTs or comparative observational studies comparing RRM to ART were identified. Called for large-scale prospective studies. Noted that existing RRM cohort studies show crude live birth rates of 25.5-38% and adjusted rates of 52.8-66%.
Read the paper ↗2025 · review · 8 of 12
Revitalizing reproductive health: innovations and future frontiers in restorative medicine
Bulletti FM et al. · Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders
Comprehensive review of RRM innovations including targeted hormonal therapies, surgical approaches to endometriosis, and integration of cycle-based diagnostics. Identifies promising future directions.
Read the paper ↗2017 · prospective cohort · 9 of 12
Enrollments, childbearing motivations, and intentions of couples in the Creighton Model Effectiveness, Intentions, and Behaviors Assessment (CEIBA) Study
Fehring RJ et al. · Linacre Quarterly
Prospective study of 296 couples across 17 CrMS centers. Cumulative 13-cycle pregnancy rate with intention to conceive: 88-89.8%. Mucus-based identification of the fertile window proved highly effective.
Read the paper ↗2025 · prospective cohort · 10 of 12
Pregnancies, intentions, and fertility behaviors during use of the Creighton Model FertilityCare System
Fehring RJ et al. · Frontiers in Medicine
Updated CEIBA results showing fertility behaviors and pregnancy outcomes during CrMS use. Real-world data on how couples use mucus charting to time intercourse for conception.
Read the paper ↗2022 · prospective cohort (methods paper) · 11 of 12
International Natural Procreative Technology Evaluation and Surveillance of Treatment for Subfertility (iNEST): enrollment and methods
Stanford JB et al. · Human Reproduction Open
Multicenter prospective study across 10 clinics in 4 countries (2006-2016). Among all couples, 57% had at least one pregnancy and 44% at least one live birth. First large-scale prospective NaPro study.
Read the paper ↗2013 · clinical commentary · 12 of 12
NaProTECHNOLOGY and Conscientious OB/GYN Medicine
Hilgers TW · Journal of Ethics, American Medical Association
Published in AMA Journal of Ethics, describes NaProTechnology as a systematic medical approach to infertility that identifies and treats underlying causes while respecting natural reproductive processes.
Read the paper ↗A paper's presence documents the evidence reviewed; it does not mean Filia endorses every intervention or conclusion.