Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30723910›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2019

A prospective study of women and girls undergoing fertility preservation due to oncologic and non-oncologic indications in Sweden-Trends in patients' choices and benefit of the chosen methods after long-term follow up.

Kenny A Rodriguez-Wallberg, Anna Marklund, Frida Lundberg, Ida Wikander, Milan Milenkovic, Amandine Anastacio, Fotios Sergouniotis, Kjell Wånggren, Jeanette Ekengren, Tekla Lind and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kenny A Rodriguez-WallbergDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4378-6181
Anna MarklundDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Frida LundbergDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ida WikanderDivision of Gynecology and Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Milan MilenkovicDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Amandine AnastacioDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Fotios SergouniotisDivision of Gynecology and Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kjell WånggrenDivision of Gynecology and Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jeanette EkengrenDivision of Gynecology and Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tekla LindDivision of Gynecology and Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Birgit BorgströmDivision of Pediatrics, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska University Hospital · SEKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

Cancer Research Funds of RadiumhemmetKarolinska InstitutetStockholm County CouncilSwedish Cancer Association BROSwedish Cancer SocietySwedish Childhood Cancer FoundationSwedish Society of Medicine
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn Scandinavian countries, programs for fertility preservation are offered free of charge at tertiary-care university hospitals to all patients facing treatments with risk of subsequent sterility. In this prospective study we aimed to investigate trends in female patients' choices after counseling and fertility preservation outcomes during follow up in relation to benign vs malignant indications. MATERIAL AND

methodsData on 1254 females including 1076 adults and 178 girls who received fertility preservation counseling for either oncologic (n = 852) or benign indications (n = 402) at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, between 1 October 1998 and 1 December 2018 were analyzed. As appropriate, t tests and chi-square tests were used to compare groups. Logistic regression was used to compare outcomes among groups depending on indications.

resultsAdult women generally elected to undergo oocyte retrieval after controlled ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes (n = 538, 73%), whereas a minor proportion opted for cryopreservation of ovarian tissue retrieved through laparoscopy (n = 221, 27%). More than half of the women with a partner chose either not to fertilize their oocytes aiming at cryopreservation of oocytes or to share obtained oocytes attempting both cryopreservation of oocytes and cryopreservation of embryos. All pre-pubertal (n = 48) and 73% of post-pubertal girls (n = 66) elected cryopreservation of ovarian tissue. In recent years, an increasing number of teenagers have opted for controlled ovarian stimulation aiming at cryopreservation of oocytes, either before (n = 24, 17%) or after completion of cancer treatment (n = 15, 10%). During follow up, 27% of the women returned for a new reproductive counseling, additional fertility preservation or to attempt pregnancy. Utilization rates among individuals who were alive and of childbearing age by December 2018 indicated 29%, 8% and 5% for embryos, oocytes and ovarian tissue with live birth rates of 54%, 46% and 7%, respectively. Women with benign indications were significantly younger than women with previous malignant indications at the time of attempting pregnancy. Although the pregnancy rates were similar among both groups, the live birth rate was significantly higher in women with benign vs previous malignant indications (47% vs 21%, P = .002).

conclusionsTrends in fertility preservation choices have changed over time. Women with previous malignancy had lower live birth rates than women with benign fertility preservation indications.

Indexed as

Fertility PreservationInfertility, FemaleNeoplasmsPatient PreferenceAdolescentAdultChoice BehaviorCounselingCryopreservationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansOocyte RetrievalPregnancyPregnancy RateSwedenadolescentsbenign diseasescancerfemalefertility preservationlong-term follow upoutcomepre-pubertal girls

Identifiers

PMID30723910
OpenAlexW2912177757

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.