Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34223220›Full record

ArticleF&S reports2020

Posthumous assisted reproduction policies among a cohort of United States' in vitro fertilization clinics.

Emma Trawick, Amani Sampson, Kara Goldman, Lisa Campo-Engelstein, Arthur Caplan, David L Keefe, Gwendolyn P Quinn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Current status and reflections on fertility preservation in China.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022
    Review
  6. International policies on posthumous reproduction: a pilot survey study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022
    Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Emma TrawickDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Amani SampsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York.
Kara GoldmanDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Lisa Campo-EngelsteinAlden March Bioethics Institute, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York.
Arthur CaplanDivision of Medical Ethics, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York.
David L KeefeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York.
Gwendolyn P QuinnDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

assisted reproductionconsentpolicyPosthumous reproductionsurvey

Identifiers

PMID34223220
PMCPMC8244314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.