Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34996479›Full record

ReviewReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2022

Oocyte cryopreservation review: outcomes of medical oocyte cryopreservation and planned oocyte cryopreservation.

Zachary Walker, Andrea Lanes, Elizabeth Ginsburg

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Targeting EGFR-REM2-CaCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zachary WalkerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Brigham & Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. zwalker1@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9761-8901
Andrea LanesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Brigham & Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Elizabeth GinsburgDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Brigham & Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe utilization of oocyte cryopreservation (OC) has become popularized with increasing numbers of reproductive-aged patients desiring to maintain fertility for future family building. OC was initially used for fertility preservation in postmenarchal patients prior to gonadotoxic therapies; however, it is now available to patients to circumvent age-related infertility and other diagnoses associated with early loss of ovarian reserve. The primary aim of this paper is to provide a narrative review of the most recent and robust data on the utilization and outcomes of OC in both patient populations. OC results in similar oocyte yield in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies and patients undergoing planned OC. Available data are insufficient to predict the live birth rates or the number of oocytes needed to result in live birth. However, oocyte yield and live birth rates are best among patients < 37.5 years old or with anti-mullerian hormone levels > 1.995 ng/dL, at the time of oocyte retrieval. There is a high 'no use' rate (58.9%) in patients using planned OC with 62.5% returning to use frozen oocytes with a spouse. The utilization rate in medical OC patients is < 10%. There is currently no data on the effects of BMI, smoking, or ethnicity on planned OC outcomes.

conclusionIt is too early to draw any final conclusions on outcomes of OC in medical OC and planned OC; however, preliminary data supports that utilization of OC in both groups result in preservation of fertility and subsequent live births in patients who return to use their cryopreserved eggs. Higher oocyte yield, with fewer ovarian stimulation cycles, and higher live birth rates are seen in patients who seek OC at younger ages, reinforcing the importance of age on fertility preservation. More studies are needed in medical OC and planned OC to help guide counseling and decision-making in patients seeking these services.

Indexed as

OocytesAdolescentAdultCryopreservationFamily Planning ServicesFemaleFertility PreservationHumansOocyte RetrievalOvarian ReservePregnancyTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultCost effectivenessFertility preservationOocyte freezingOocyte utilizationOocyte warmPlanned oocyte cryopreservationVitrification

Identifiers

PMID34996479
PMCPMC8740039
OpenAlexW4206313636

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.