ArticleF&S reports2020
Factors influencing postmortem disposition of cryopreserved sperm in men undergoing fertility preservation.
Article in F&S reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The era of increasing cancer survivorship: Trends in fertility preservation, medico-legal implications, and ethical challenges.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2025Article
- Update on techniques for cryopreservation of human spermatozoa.Asian journal of andrologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo study the factors that influence men's disposition towards post-mortem disposition of their cryopreserved gametes.
designA retrospective chart review of sperm cryopreservations between June 2016 and January 2020 was performed. All patients ≥ 18 years of age were included. Samples intended for donation or records with an unspecified reason for preservation were excluded.
settingA large academic health center. PATIENTS: Participants' (n=217) mean age was 35.8 ± 10.8 years.
interventionsNot applicable.
main outcome measuresPatients' reason for undergoing sperm cryopreservation, method of retrieval, and whether they chose to have the sample preserved or discarded post-mortem.
resultsA total of 217 men were analyzed; mean age was 35.8 ± 10.8 years. Of those, 176 (81.1%) men decided to preserve their sperm for a spouse and 41 (18.9%) elected to have the sample discarded when choosing the fate of their cryopreserved sample should they die. There was no significant difference in disposition towards sample fate based on age or method of collection. However, there was a significant difference based on the "reason for cryopreservation" (p = 0.001). We found that compared to patients that underwent sperm cryopreservation due to cancer-related treatments, the patients that underwent sperm banking prior to vasectomy were more inclined to discard the sample (OR = 3.45, 95% CI: 1.16 - 10.27, p = 0.026). Men that collected the sperm as an in vitro fertilization backup were less willing to discard the sample (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.18 - 0.97, p = 0.043).
conclusionsIt appears that men's disposition towards post-mortem disposition of their cryopreserved sperm are influenced by their reason for cryopreservation, rather than their age or method used for collection. As cryopreservation has become more common and affordable, understanding the factors that impact men's disposition towards the post-mortem disposition of the cryopreserved gametes is imperative, as this knowledge has the potential to influence institutional policies and legislation, and may help solve future legal conflicts and ethical dilemmas.
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.