Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25838742›Full record

ReviewJournal of human reproductive sciences

Fertility preservation in female cancer patients: An overview.

Nalini Mahajan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of human reproductive sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Insights into the Knowledge and Barriers of Oncofertility Among Oncology Nurses in Saudi Arabia.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Nalini MahajanDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Nova IVI Fertilit, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fertility preservation is becoming increasingly important to improve the quality of life in cancer survivors. Despite guidelines suggesting that discussion of fertility preservation should be done prior to starting cancer therapies, there is a lack of implementation in this area. A number of techniques are available for fertility preservation, and they can be used individually or together in the same patient to maximize efficiency. Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are now established techniques but have their limitations. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation though considered experimental at present, has a wider clinical application and the advantage of keeping the fertility window open for a longer time. Both chemotherapy and radiotherapy have a major impact on reproductive potential and fertility preservation procedures should be carried out prior to these treatments. The need for fertility preservation has to be weighed against morbidity and mortality associated with cancer. There is thus a need for a multidisciplinary collaboration between oncologists and reproductive specialists to improve awareness and availability.

Indexed as

Cancercounselingcryopreservationfertility preservation

Identifiers

PMID25838742
PMCPMC4381379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.