Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34104711›Full record

ArticleTransplantation direct2021

Uterine Transplantation Using Living Donation: A Cross-sectional Study Assessing Perceptions, Acceptability, and Suitability.

Benjamin P Jones, Abirami Rajamanoharan, Nicola J Williams, Saaliha Vali, Srdjan Saso, Ifigenia Mantrali, Maria Jalmbrant, Meen-Yau Thum, Cesar Diaz-Garcia, Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transplantation direct, 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. Review
  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

15 authors.

Benjamin P JonesWest London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Abirami RajamanoharanWest London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Nicola J WilliamsDepartment of Politics, Philosophy and Religion, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Saaliha ValiWest London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Srdjan SasoWest London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Ifigenia MantraliWest London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Maria JalmbrantWest London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Meen-Yau ThumDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Cesar Diaz-GarciaThe Oxford Transplant Centre, The Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sadaf Ghaem-MaghamiWest London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Stephen WilkinsonDepartment of Politics, Philosophy and Religion, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.
Isabel QuirogaThe Oxford Transplant Centre, The Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Peter FriendLister Fertility Clinic, The Lister Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Joseph YazbekWest London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
J Richard SmithWest London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A uterine transplantation is a nonvital, quality-of-life-enhancing solid organ transplant. Given improvements in donor risk profile and the anticipated shortage of suitable deceased donors, nondirected donation could facilitate sustainability as uterine transplantation moves from research into the clinical realm. The aim of this article is to determine perceptions and identify motivations of potential nondirected living uterus donors and assess acceptability and suitability.

methodsA cross-sectional survey using an electronic questionnaire among women who have inquired about donating their uterus for uterine transplantation.

resultsThe majority of respondents "strongly agreed" or "agreed" that the most prevalent motivations to donate their uterus include helping someone carry and give birth to their own baby (n = 150; 99%), helping others (n = 147; 97%), and because they no longer need their womb (n = 147; 97%). After considering risks of uterus donation, the majority were still keen to donate their uterus (n = 144; 95%), but following a process of exclusion using donor selection criteria, less than a third (n = 42; 29%) were found to be suitable to proceed.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates novel insight into the motivations of women who wish to donate their uterus and displays high levels of acceptability after consideration of the risks involved. Despite the physical risk and transient impact upon ability to undertake activities of daily living, women who donate their uterus expect to gain psychological and emotional benefits from enabling another woman to gestate and give birth to their own future children. However, currently used selection criteria reduce the number of potential donors significantly.

Identifiers

PMID34104711
PMCPMC8183710

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.