Towards less confusing terminology in reproductive medicine: a proposal

This lead debate article is published simultaneously in this journal and inFertility and Sterility with the aim of achieving the broadest possible response. Professor Habbema and co‐authors, backed by both journals, wish to focus on achieving consensus on this topic. Readers are invited to submit well‐argued response articles of up to 3000 words to either journal. These will be peer‐reviewed and published as appropriate (but only in the journal to which they are submitted). At the end of 2004 it is hoped that these debate series will be one of the pieces of evidence used to establish consensus. Any agreed consensus document emerging in due course will be published in both journals. The use of the term ‘infertility’ and related terms in reproductive medicine is reviewed. Current terminology is found to be ambiguous, confusing and misleading. We recommend that the fertility investigation report of a couple should consist of statements concerning description, diagnosis and prognosis. The description concerns the duration of non‐pregnancy before consulting the clinician. A system for prognostic grading is proposed. The fertility investigation report forms the basis for further action, including the possibility of waiting with treatment in case of almost normal or only slightly reduced fertility. The use of the terms infertility, subfertility and fecundity is not necessary, and it is recommended to avoid them.