ArticleF&S reports2020
Posthumous assisted reproduction policies among a cohort of United States' in vitro fertilization clinics.
Article in F&S reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical and logistical considerations for the development of institutional posthumous sperm retrieval policies.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Decreasing barriers to the utilization of cryopreserved sperm in male cancer survivors: an expert review and guide.The oncologist · 2025Review
- Ethical and Psychological Considerations for Posthumous-Assisted Reproduction for Adolescents and Young Adults With Poor Cancer Prognosis in the Context of Grief.Clinical practice in pediatric psychology · 2024Article
- Perspectives surrounding fertility preservation and posthumous reproduction for adolescent and young adults with terminal cancer: Survey of allied health professionals.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Current status and reflections on fertility preservation in China.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Review
- International policies on posthumous reproduction: a pilot survey study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
- Assisted posthumous reproduction: certainly not a dead issue.F&S reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the presence and content of policies toward posthumous assisted reproduction (PAR) using oocytes and embryos among Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) member clinics in the United States.
designCross-sectional questionnaire-based study.
settingNot applicable. PATIENTS: A total of 62 SART member clinics.
interventionsQuestionnaire including multiple choice and open-ended questions.
main outcome measuresDescriptive statistics regarding presence and content of policies regarding PAR using oocytes and embryos, consent document content regarding oocyte and embryo disposition, and eligibility of minors and those with terminal illness for fertility preservation.
resultsOf the 332 clinics contacted, 62 responded (response rate 18.7%). Respondents were distributed across the United States, and average volume of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles per year ranged from <250 to >1,500, but 71.2% (n = 42) reported a volume of <500. Nearly one-half (42.4%, n = 25) of clinics surveyed reported participating in any cases of posthumous reproduction during the past 5 years, and 6.8% (n = 4) reported participation in >5 cases. Participation in cases of posthumous reproduction was not significantly associated with practice type or IVF cycle volume among those surveyed. Only 59.6% (n = 34) of clinics surveyed had written policies regarding PAR using oocytes or embryos, whereas 36.8% (n = 21) reported they did not have a policy. Practice type, IVF cycle volume, fertility preservation volume, and prior participation in cases of PAR were not significantly associated with the presence of a policy among respondent clinics. Of those with a policy, 55.9% (n = 19) reported they had used that policy, 59.1% (n = 13) without a policy reported they had considered adopting one, and 63.6% (n = 14) reported they had received a request for PAR services. Only 47.2% (n = 25) of clinics surveyed specified that patients not expected to survive to use oocytes due to terminal illness are eligible for oocyte cryopreservation, whereas 45.3% (n = 24) did not specify.
conclusionsRespondent clinics reported receiving an increasing number of requests for PAR services, but many also lacked PAR policies. Those with policies did not always follow ASRM recommendations. Given the low response rate, these data cannot be interpreted as representative of SART clinics overall. As PAR cases become more common, however, this study highlights poor reporting of PAR and institutional policies toward PAR, suggesting that SART clinics may not be equipped to systematically manage the complexities of PAR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.