Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35178481›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2022

Good practice recommendations for information provision for those involved in reproductive donation

ESHRE Working Group on Reproductive Donation, Jackson Kirkman-Brown, Carlos Calhaz-Jorge, Eline A F Dancet, Kersti Lundin, Mariana Martins, Kelly Tilleman, Petra Thorn, Nathalie Vermeulen, Lucy Frith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Reproductive Donors' Needs and Preferences: A Mixed-methods Systematic Review.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. FIGO position statement on surrogacy: Ethical considerations.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. FIGO position statement: Gamete donations.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Ethical considerations on surrogacy†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

10 authors.

ESHRE Working Group on Reproductive Donation
Jackson Kirkman-BrownCentre for Human Reproductive Science, University of Birmingham, IMSR, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2833-8970
Carlos Calhaz-JorgeFaculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Eline A F DancetKU Leuven, Department of Development and Regeneration, Leuven, Belgium.
Kersti LundinDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Mariana MartinsUniversity of Porto, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6489-0290
Kelly TillemanDepartment for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Gent, Ghent, Belgium.
Petra ThornPrivate Practice, Couple and Family Therapy, Infertility Counseling, Mörfelden, Germany.
Nathalie VermeulenEuropean Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Central Office, Strombeek-Bever, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8046-6799
Lucy FrithCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8506-0699

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat information and support should be offered to donors, intended parents and donor-conceived people, in general and in consideration of the availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and matching services? SUMMARY ANSWER: For donors, intended parents and donor-conceived offspring, recommendations are made that cover information needs and informed consent, psychosocial implications and disclosure. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Trends indicate that the use of donor-assisted conception is growing and guidance is needed to help these recipients/intended parents, the donors and offspring, navigate the rapidly changing environment in which donor-assisted conception takes place. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations based, where available, on evidence collected from a literature search and expert opinion. Draft recommendations were published for stakeholder review and adapted where relevant based on the comments received. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsPapers retrieved from PUBMED were included from 1 January 2014 up to 31 August 2020, focusing on studies published since direct-to-consumer genetic testing has become more widespread and accessible. The current paper is limited to reproductive donation performed in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) centres (and gamete banks): donation outside the medical context was not considered. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 32 recommendations were made for information provision and support to donors, 32 for intended parents and 27 for donor-conceived offspring requesting information/support. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The available evidence in the area of reproductive donation is limited and diverse with regards to the context and types of donation. General conclusions and recommendations are largely based on expert opinion and may need to be adapted in light of future research. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThese recommendations provide guidance to MAR centres and gamete banks on good practice in information provision and support but should also be considered by regulatory bodies and policymakers at a national and international level to guide regulatory and legislative efforts towards the protection of donors and donor-conceived offspring. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The development of this good practice paper was funded by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), covering expenses associated with the WG meetings, the literature searches and dissemination. The WG members did not receive any payment. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER:

Indexed as

counsellingdirect-to-consumer genetic testingdisclosuredonor-conceptiongamete sharinginformationoocyte/egg donationsperm donation

Identifiers

PMID35178481
PMCPMC8847071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.