ArticleBMJ open2023
Effectiveness and feasibility of online fertility preservation decision aids for young female patients with cancer: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perceptions and experiences of fertility preservation in female patients with cancer in Greece.BMC women's health · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCancer diagnosis and treatment can impair fertility, and younger female patients with cancer have a particularly strong need for fertility preservation. Fertility preservation decision aids are thought to help patients make proactive and informed treatment decisions. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of online fertility preservation decision aids for young female patients with cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO and CHINAL, along with three grey literature sources (Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), will be searched from each database's establishment to 30 November 2022. Two trained reviewers will independently screen the articles, and the data extraction and methodological quality of eligible randomised controlled trials and quasiexperimental studies will be assessed. A meta-analysis will be performed using Review Manager V.5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration) software, and heterogeneity will be assessed using I² statistics. If a meta-analysis is not possible, a narrative synthesis will be done. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since this systematic review is based on published data, no ethical approval is required. The study's findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022363287.
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.