Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33939167›Full record

ReviewReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2021

Methods of Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation: Is Vitrification Superior to Slow Freezing?-Ovarian Tissue Freezing Methods.

Marisa Kometas, Gregory M Christman, Joseph Kramer, Alice Rhoton-Vlasak

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Cryopreservation of human kidney organoids.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. The report of ovarian tissue transplant in Iran: A case report.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marisa KometasUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Gregory M ChristmanDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Joseph KramerDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Alice Rhoton-VlasakDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. rhotona@ufl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8859-4370
University of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After cancer treatment, female survivors often develop ovarian insufficiency or failure. Oocyte and embryo freezing are well-established fertility preservation options, but cannot be applied in pre-pubescent girls, in women with hormone-sensitive malignancies, or when gonadotoxic treatment cannot be delayed. Although ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) has been used to restore fertility and endocrine function, the relative efficacy of its two major protocols, slow freezing and vitrification, remains controversial. This literature review evaluates clinical and lab-based studies published between January 2012 and June 2020 to determine whether vitrification, the optimal technique for oocyte and embryo cryopreservation, preserves ovarian tissue more effectively than slow freezing. Due to limited clinical data involving ovarian tissue vitrification, most clinical studies focus on slow freezing. Only 9 biochemical studies that directly compare the effects of slow freezing and vitrification of human ovarian tissue were noted. Most studies report no significant difference in follicular morphology and distribution between cryopreservation methods, but these findings must be interpreted in the context of high methodological variability. Discrepant findings regarding the effects of cryopreservation method on follicle viability, gene expression, and hormone production require further evaluation. Early clinical outcomes appear favorable for vitrification, but additional studies and longer term follow-up are needed to establish its efficacy. Sharing data through national or international registries would expedite this analysis. However, even if research corroborates conclusions of no clinical or biochemical difference between cryopreservation methods, the decreased costs and increased efficiency associated with vitrification make this method more accessible and cost-effective.

Indexed as

FreezingVitrificationClinical Trials as TopicCryopreservationFemaleHumansOvarian FollicleOvaryTissue Culture TechniquesFertility preservationOvarian tissue cryopreservationSlow freezingTechniquesVitrification

Identifiers

PMID33939167
OpenAlexW3159940281

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.