ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2020
Provider Knowledge and Support of Uterus Transplantation: Surveying Multidisciplinary Team Members.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving future care: the role of oncofertility education in medical curricula in Germany. Results of a nationwide survey of 346 medical students.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Medical Professionals' Opinions of and Attitudes Toward Uterus Transplantation in Hungary.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- Attitudes of women towards uterus transplantation in Turkey: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Exploring Divergent Views: A Comparative Study of Uterus Transplantation Perceptions among Transplant and Obstetrics/Gynecology Providers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Uterus Transplantation as a Surgical Innovation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- Awareness and Interest in Uterus Transplantation over Time: Analysis of Those Seeking Surgical Correction for Uterine-Factor Infertility in the US.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Uterus transplantation in a sheep model: novel surgical technique with long-term survival and uterus vitality. First case series in Argentina.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine relevant provider opinions on uterus transplantation (UTx). PATIENTS AND
methodsWe invited 1933 providers in obstetrics and gynecology, transplant surgery, transplant medicine, internal medicine, and family medicine at a large, integrated health care system to complete an online survey containing a series of questions on their attitudes about the ethics and clinical utility of UTx. The survey was open from June 4, 2018, through July 2, 2018. We received 449 responses overall (23.2% response rate).
resultsOf 433 physicians who responded, 195 (45.0%) believe that UTx is ethically justified, and just over a third (160 of 446 [35.9%]) would introduce the possibility of UTx to a patient with absolute uterine factor infertility (AUFI). Respondents indicated the risks to donor, recipient, and child carried the most weight in their ethical evaluation and were most supportive of UTx in a patient with congenital uterine absence (334 of 743 [45.0%]; participants were allowed to choose more than one answer). A majority stated that a living or cadaveric donor would be an acceptable donor source (238 of 395 [60.3%]).
conclusionProvider support for UTx is qualified by safety concerns and its expansion to patient populations other than women with AUFI. This survey suggests that most providers limit their support of UTx to patients with the most demonstrated clinical need, childless women with AUFI.
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.