Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33959685›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2021

The experiences of women with breast cancer who undergo fertility preservation.

T Dahhan, F van der Veen, A M E Bos, M Goddijn, E A F Dancet

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Validation of the Oncofertility Support Scale derived from the Fertility Information Support scale among young adult women with breast cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  2. Fertility preservation decision-making among adolescents and young adults with hematologic diseases and their families in China: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  3. Barriers to and Facilitators of Shared Decision-Making Implementation in Fertility Preservation for Patients With Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

T DahhanCenter of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4463-3283
F van der VeenCenter of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A M E BosCenter of Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M GoddijnCenter of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (location AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
E A F DancetDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Research Foundation-Flanders, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLResearch Foundation - Flanders · BEUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionHow do women, who have just been diagnosed with breast cancer, experience oocyte or embryo banking? SUMMARY ANSWER: Fertility preservation was a challenging yet welcome way to take action when confronted with breast cancer. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Fertility preservation for women with breast cancer is a way to safeguard future chances of having children. Women who have just been diagnosed with breast cancer report stress, as do women who have to undergo IVF treatment. How women experience the collision of these two stressfull events, has not yet been studied. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We performed a multicenter qualitative study with a phenomenological approach including 21 women between March and July 2014. Women were recruited from two university-based fertility clinics. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsWomen with breast cancer who banked oocytes or embryos 1-15 months before study participation were eligible. We conducted in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 21 women, which was sufficient to reach data saturation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The 21 women interviewed had a mean age of 32 years. Analysis of the 21 interviews revealed three main experiences: the burden of fertility preservation, the new identity of a fertility patient and coping with breast cancer through fertility preservation. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Interviewing women after, rather than during, fertility preservation might have induced recall bias. Translation of quotes was not carried out by a certified translator. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThe insights gained from this study of the experiences of women undergoing fertility preservation while being newly diagnosed with breast cancer could be used as a starting point for adapting the routine psychosocial care provided by fertility clinic staff. Future studies are necessary to investigate whether adapting routine psychosocial care improves women's wellbeing. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None of the authors in this study declare potential conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Center of Reproductive Medicine of the Academic Medical Center.

Indexed as

assisted reproductioncryopreservationfemale infertilitygonadotrophinsovarian stimulationpsychologyqualitative researchreproductive decision makingvitrification

Identifiers

PMID33959685
PMCPMC8082579
OpenAlexW3158490451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.