Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27825378›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2016

Buying and selling human eggs: infertility providers' ethical and other concerns regarding egg donor agencies.

Robert Klitzman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reproductive Donors' Needs and Preferences: A Mixed-methods Systematic Review.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Egg donation advertisements: addressing the regulatory gap.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Oocyte Biobanks: Old Assumptions and New Challenges.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert KlitzmanColumbia University, 1051 Riverside Drive #15, NY, 10032, New York, USA. rlk2@cumc.columbia.edu.
Columbia University · US

Funding

CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR024156 · NCRR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2006 to 2011
$53.0M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024156
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEgg donor agencies are increasingly being used as part of IVF in the US, but are essentially unregulated, posing critical ethical and policy questions concerning how providers view and use them, and what the implications might be.

methodsThirty-seven in-depth interviews of approximately 1 h were conducted - with 27 IVF providers and 10 patients.

resultsClinicians vary in their views and interactions concerning egg donor agencies, ranging widely in whether and how often they use agencies. Agencies may offer egg recipients increased choices, but raise ethical and other concerns regarding respect for donors as individuals (e.g., adequacy of informed consent), potential harms, justice (e.g., concerns about possible eugenics - by encouraging and facilitating selection and marketing of facts for offspring), and donors constituting a vulnerable group. The quality of agencies appears to vary considerably, from acceptable to problematic. Agencies' medical and psychological screenings of donors can range, and be minimal. Not all agencies adequately track donors' prior numbers of donations, or share the relevant records with clinics. Clinics may find that potential donors have genetic mutations and medical problems about which they were unaware. Yet agencies and clinics do not provide care for such donors, generating stress. Dissemination of donors' personal data can potentially threaten confidentiality. Questions emerge of whether increased monitoring/oversight of agencies may be beneficial.

conclusionsThese data, the first to examine providers' views and interactions regarding egg donor agencies, suggest wide variations in quality and use of agencies, and have critical implications for practice, policy, education and research. Given the potential limitations of the current model of self-regulation of agencies, the present data suggest needs to consider stronger professional guidelines or possible governmental regulations to establish, require and enforce higher standards for agencies to follow, regarding advertising to potential donors and recipients, arranging for appropriate informed consent concerning risks and benefits involved, and for quality control. Appropriate informed consent should be obtained from potential egg donors, including the fact that they may learn about mutations or medical problems about which they were unaware, but for which they will not receive treatment as part of this process. Enhancing understanding among the public-at-large about what egg donation entails may also be helpful.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelFertilization in VitroTissue DonorsConfidentialityEugenicsGovernment RegulationHumansInfertilityInformed ConsentOocyte DonationPhysiciansReproductive Health ServicesSocial JusticeSocial ResponsibilityVulnerable PopulationsAssisted reproductive technologyEthicsInfertilityInformed consentIVFOocyte donationOocytesPolicy

Identifiers

PMID27825378
PMCPMC5101668
OpenAlexW2551720813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.