Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31399917›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2019

Satisfaction, disappointment and regret surrounding fertility preservation decisions in the paediatric and adolescent cancer population.

Sadunee Jayasuriya, Michelle Peate, Catherine Allingham, Nancy Li, Lynn Gillam, Margaret Zacharin, Peter Downie, Paddy Moore, Leanne Super, Lisa Orme and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Psychological State and Decision Perceptions of Male and Female Cancer Patients on Fertility Preservation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Pediatric oncofertility: an update.Translational andrology and urology · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Fertility Options for the Transgender and Gender Nonbinary Patient.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2020
    Review
  20. Review
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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sadunee JayasuriyaMonash University, Clayton, Australia. sadunee.jayasuriya@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8146-037X
Michelle PeateDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, The Royal Women's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Catherine AllinghamDepartment of Paediatric & Adolescent Gynaecology, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia.
Nancy LiDepartment of Paediatric & Adolescent Gynaecology, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia.
Lynn GillamMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Margaret ZacharinDepartment of Endocrinology, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia.
Peter DownieDepartment of Paediatrics, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Paddy MooreDepartment of Paediatric & Adolescent Gynaecology, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia.
Leanne SuperChildren's Cancer Centre, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia.
Lisa OrmeChildren's Cancer Centre, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia.
Franca AgrestaMelbourne IVF, Parkville, Australia.
Catharyn SternMelbourne IVF, Parkville, Australia.
Yasmin JayasingheDepartment of Paediatric & Adolescent Gynaecology, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia.
Royal Children's Hospital · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUMyer Foundation · AU

Funding

National Breast Cancer Foundation ECF-0015Victorian Cancer Agency ECSG13027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWith over 80% of paediatric and adolescent cancer patients surviving into adulthood, quality-of-life issues such as future fertility are increasingly important. However, little is known about regret around decisions to pursue or forgo fertility preservation (FP). We investigated the risk of decision regret in families involved in making a FP decision and explored contributive factors.

methodsParents and patients ≥ 15 years were invited to participate. Participants completed a 10-item survey, including a validated Decision Regret Scale. Scores ≥ 30 indicated high regret. Free-text response items allowed participants to provide reasons for satisfaction or regret.

resultsA total of 108 parents and 30 patients participated. Most (81.4%) reported low regret (mean score 13.7). On multivariate analysis, predictors of low regret included having a FP procedure and a fertility discussion pre-treatment. Most participants believed that FP offers hope for future fertility. Some reported dissatisfaction with the process of decision-making.

conclusionOverall levels of regret in the study population were low, with factors associated with quality, timely discussion and belief in the success of FP technology being predictors of low regret. However, dissatisfaction with the decision-making process itself revealed that refinements to the programme are required to meet families' needs.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPersonal SatisfactionAdolescentAdultChildCross-Sectional StudiesEmotionsFemaleFertility PreservationHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedParentsYoung AdultDecision-makingDecision regretFertility preservationOncofertilityPaediatric

Identifiers

PMID31399917
PMCPMC6730729
OpenAlexW2968005542

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.