ArticleFertility and sterility2022
Racial and ethnic disparities among donor oocyte banks in the United States.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Cardinal protocol: investigating a simplified, cost-conscious option for oocyte cryopreservation in a prospective noninferiority cohort study.F&S reports · 2026Article
- Inclusive Fertility: Investigating the Lack of Diversity in Sperm Donation.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Decision making of male same-sex couples pursuing pregnancy via assisted reproductive technology: a qualitative study.F&S reports · 2025Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether racial and ethnic distributions of oocyte donors contributing to US oocyte banks differ from the demographics of US women and donor oocyte recipients.
designCross-sectional study.
settingUnited States donor oocyte banks, US census, and fertility clinics reporting to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System. PATIENTS: Oocyte donors from 12 banks, women aged 18-44 years based on the 2019 census, and US recipients of cryopreserved donor oocytes from 2012 to 2015.
interventionNone.
main outcome measureProportions of donors identifying as each racial and ethnic group.
resultsOf the 1,574 oocyte donors, 678 (43.1%) identified as white compared with 54.8% of US women and 69.1% of donor oocyte recipients. Proportions of donors identifying as Hispanic or two or more races were larger than those of US women and donor oocyte recipients (Hispanic: 24.1% vs. 20.8%, and 24.1% vs. 8.8%, respectively; two or more races: 16.1% vs. 2.3%, and 16.1% vs. 0.5%, respectively). African American donors were underrepresented compared with US women (8.9% vs. 14.0%) and oocyte recipients (8.9% vs. 10.8%). Although the proportion of Asian donors was similar to that of US women (7.7% vs. 7.1%), Asian donors were underrepresented compared with donor oocyte recipients (7.7% vs. 10.6%).
conclusionRacial and ethnic distribution of oocyte donors differs significantly from the demographics of US women and cryopreserved donor oocyte recipients. These data suggest a need for targeted recruitment of African American and Asian oocyte donors.
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.