ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2017
Medical and elective fertility preservation: impact of removal of the experimental label from oocyte cryopreservation.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autonomy under pressure: a scoping review of social egg freezing in the bottom quintile of the gender gap index.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- A dozen years of ovarian tissue cryopreservation at a pediatric hospital: tracking program and patient metrics while adapting to increasing needs.F&S reports · 2024Article
- Impact of employer-covered planned oocyte cryopreservation on decision-making for medical training.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Article
- Knowledge and attitude of reproductive-aged women towards planned oocyte cryopreservation in the United Arab Emirates.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- Financing future fertility: Women's views on funding egg freezing.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2022Article
- Oocyte cryopreservation review: outcomes of medical oocyte cryopreservation and planned oocyte cryopreservation.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2022Review
- Factors Impacting Fertility Preservation in Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer: A Retrospective Study.Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology · 2020Article
- Ten pathways to elective egg freezing: a binational analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2018Article
- Initiating patient discussions about oocyte cryopreservation: Attitudes of obstetrics and gynaecology resident physicians.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and ovarian stimulation outcomes between patients presenting for medically indicated vs. elective fertility preservation consultation and to determine the impact of the 2013 ASRM guidelines on oocyte cryopreservation on the patient population presenting for fertility preservation consultation.
methodsRetrospective cohort study conducted at an academic center. Study population included 332 patients presenting for medically indicated fertility preservation consultation and 210 patients presenting for elective consultation.
resultsPatients presenting for elective fertility preservation consultation were more likely to be of advanced age, non-Caucasian, highly educated, single, nulligravid, and meet criteria for diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). Additionally, patients presenting electively were more likely to have fertility insurance benefits. A higher percentage of patients with insurance benefits for oocyte cryopreservation proceeded to stimulation. There were no differences in stimulation parameters or number of retrieved oocytes between the groups when adjusted for age. Following release of the ASRM guidelines on oocyte cryopreservation, there was no difference in the percentage of patients in the medical group who proceeded with stimulation; however, a higher percentage of patients presenting electively underwent ovarian stimulation.
conclusionAlthough the populations presenting for medical compared with elective fertility preservation differ at baseline, ovarian stimulation parameters and outcomes are similar when adjusted for age. Insurance benefits for fertility preservation are not comprehensive and impact the decision to proceed with stimulation in all patients. The publication of the ASRM guidelines on oocyte cryopreservation increased utilization of this technology among patients presenting electively; however, they remained at an advanced age and with decreased ovarian reserve parameters.
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.