Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28353127›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2017

Testicular Tissue Cryopreservation and Ethical Considerations: A Scoping Review.

Angel Petropanagos

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Sex, Drugs, and a Few Other Things.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2017
    Article
  4. 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.

Angel PetropanagosNovel Tech Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, 1379 Seymour Street, PO BOX 15000, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada. Angel.p@dal.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Testicular tissue cryopreservation (TTCP) aims to preserve the future option of genetic reproduction for prepubescent cancer patients who are at risk of infertility as a result of their cancer therapies. This technology is experimental and currently only offered in the research context. As TTCP moves towards becoming more widely available, it is imperative that healthcare providers recognize the complex ethical issues surrounding this technology. This scoping review study identifies and assesses the range and depth of ethical concerns related to this testicular tissue cryopreservation technology. At present, no such scoping review of ethical concerns exists in the TTCP literature. The forty-three full-text articles included in this study yielded twenty-two different ethical considerations discussed in relation to TTCP. It was observed that these ethical considerations fit within a mainstream Principlism approach to bioethics. Accordingly, there are ethical gaps in the TTCP literature that can be identified with alternative moral lenses. In particular, it was found that ethical concerns related to context and relational aspects of identity were absent in nearly all ethical examinations of TTCP. Furthermore, only 9 per cent of articles reviewed in this study focused primarily on the ethics of TTCP, thus demonstrating a need for further in depth ethical analyses of this technology. The results of this study are important for supporting the ethical provision of TTCP and can contribute to policy and guideline development. The findings of this study demonstrate the need for greater depth and diversity in analyses of ethical considerations related to this technology.

Indexed as

CryopreservationEthical AnalysisInfertility, MaleNeoplasmsTestisHumansMalePubertyReproductionReproductive Techniques, AssistedClinical trialsEthical considerationsFertility PreservationPediatric cancer patientsScoping ReviewTesticular tissue cryopreservation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.