ArticleHuman reproduction open2022
Good practice recommendations for information provision for those involved in reproductive donation
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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reproductive Donors' Needs and Preferences: A Mixed-methods Systematic Review.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2025Pooled it
- Gender differences in psychological status of infertile couples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of assisted and third-party reproduction guidelines regarding management and care of donors.Reproductive health · 2024Pooled it
- Parent and pediatric nurse practitioner views on integrating the digital TELL tool intervention into clinical practice.Journal of pediatric nursingTrial
- ESHRE position paper: international limits on the number of offspring per gamete donor.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- An analysis of the outcome of 2,443 women applying to be donors at a commercial egg bank in the USA.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Article
- Associations of Lifestyle Factors with Cadmium and Nickel in Seminal Fluid of Potential Sperm Donors.Biological trace element research · 2026Article
- Direct to consumer genetic testing and gamete donor conception: ethical challenges.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Expanding the Digital, Donor-Assisted Conception Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool) Intervention to the Pregnant and Early Parenthood Periods: Findings From a Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Developing and validating an evidence-based health promotion program for reproductive donors reflecting their challenges in the process of donation decision-making: a multi-method study protocol.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- Should recipient parents have access to gamete donors' raw genomic data? Clinical, legal, and ethical considerations.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- FIGO position statement on surrogacy: Ethical considerations.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
- Are open-identity donors prepared for release of their identity? Long-term follow-up of a national sample of oocyte and sperm donors.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Semen cryopreservation and storage in liquid nitrogen: Impact on chromatin compaction.Andrology · 2025Article
- FIGO position statement: Gamete donations.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
- Neonatal Health Following IVF: Own Versus Donor Material in Singleton and Multiple Pregnancies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Ethical considerations on surrogacy†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Personal interest and attitudes towards oocyte donation practice: a cross-sectional survey among Dutch-speaking young women in Belgium.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- 'I have to remind myself that everyone's search is different': experiences and outcomes of searching and not searching for donor connections among donor conceived adults.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Oocyte donors' experience and expectations in a non-profit fertility care setting.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.