ReviewThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2020
Ethical Implications of Donor Type for Uterus Transplantation: Why We Should Remain Wary of Using Living Donors.
Review in The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uterus transplantation: an ethical analysis.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2026Review
- How do women with Rokitansky syndrome and healthcare professionals reflect on the provision of uterine transplantation? Insights from an interview study in France, Norway, and Sweden.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Living-Donor Uterus Transplantation: A Clinical Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Uterus transplantation: from research, through human trials and into the future.Human reproduction update · 2023Review
- Uterus Transplantation as a Surgical Innovation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- Differences between living and deceased donation in human uterus transplantation: A narrative review.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2023Review
- Uterus Transplantation: Revisiting the Question of Deceased Donors versus Living Donors for Organ Procurement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Surrogacy and "Procreative Tourism". What Does the Future Hold from the Ethical and Legal Perspectives?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the last few years, research teams have made significant advancements in treating absolute uterine factor infertility through uterus transplantation, culminating in the birth of the first US baby born from a uterus transplant in November 2017. However, studies have differed on the choice of either deceased or living donors, with some centers even exploring both methods. As researchers continue to investigate the medical feasibility of these approaches, it is also important for the medical community to consider how deceased and living uterus donation differ ethically. We argue that if living and deceased donation demonstrate equivalent clinical efficacy and the deceased donor pool is sufficient, living uterus donation should be reevaluated and may no longer be ethically justifiable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33005123PMC7513439What 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.