Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33279418›Full record

ArticleReproductive biomedicine online2021

Assisted reproductive technology, justice and autonomy in an era of COVID-19.

Sarah J Martins da Silva, Lisa Campo-Engelstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive biomedicine online, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

2 authors.

Sarah J Martins da SilvaReproductive Medicine Research Group, School of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. Electronic address: s.martinsdasilva@dundee.ac.uk.
Lisa Campo-EngelsteinInstitute for the Medical Humanities, Preventive Medicine and Population Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fertility services were significantly curtailed or suspended as an initial response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic earlier this year, following guidance from European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) as well as a General Direction (GD0014) issued by the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority (HFEA). It is difficult to argue with triage of medical care and resources in the face of anticipated overwhelming demand, but this situation resulted in considerable distress, as shown by a change.org petition opposing ASRM recommendations, which has gathered over 21,000 signatures to date. Although halting assisted reproductive technology (ART) as the pandemic unfolded was ethical because public health goals superseded individual patient autonomy, the fertility sector now faces a greater challenge balancing ethical considerations in an era characterized by the ongoing threat of COVID-19. This article discusses justice and autonomy in the context of ART, potential conflicts and resolutions.

Indexed as

FertilityHealth EquityCOVID-19Decision MakingDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansInfertilityPandemicsPregnancyReproductive MedicineReproductive Techniques, AssistedSocial JusticeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33279418
PMCPMC7667398

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.