ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2014
Preserving Fertility in Children and Adolescents with Cancer.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reproductive outcomes following a stem cell transplant for a haematological malignancy in female cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Pooled it
- Update on fertility preservation from the Barcelona International Society for Fertility Preservation-ESHRE-ASRM 2015 expert meeting: indications, results and future perspectives.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2017Guideline
- Review
- Ethical, legal, social, and policy issues of ovarian tissue cryopreservation in prepubertal girls: a critical interpretive review.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Review
- Detection of spermatogonial stem/progenitor cells in prepubertal mouse testis with deep learning.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation in Children and Adolescents.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Roles of Spermatogonial Stem Cells in Spermatogenesis and Fertility Restoration.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
- Fertility-Sparing Methods in Adolescents Affected by Endometrial Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the face of excellent survival rates for pediatric and adolescent cancer, preserving the opportunity to have biological children is an important component of long term quality of life. Yet, modern chemotherapeutic regimens continue to pose a threat to fertility. The only fertility preservation methods available to pre-pubertal children of both genders is cryopreservation of gonadal tissue, a highly experimental intervention, or shielding/re-location of reproductive tissue in the setting of radiation. These techniques are available in the post pubertal population as well, but post pubertal patients also have the option for cryopreservation of gametes, a process that is much simpler in males than females. For this reason, prior to the initiation of therapy, sperm banking should be considered standard of care for males, while consideration of embryo or oocyte cryopreservation should be limited to those females at risk of developing ovarian failure. Attention to reproductive health and fertility preservation should continue after the completion of therapy. Establishing programs that streamline access to current fertility preservation techniques will assist in ensuring that all eligible patients can avail themselves of current options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.