Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37145331›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2024

Websites about, not for, adolescents? A systematic analysis of online fertility preservation information for adolescent and young adult cancer patients.

Sienna Ruiz, Rachel Mintz, Amela Sijecic, Michelle Eggers, Aubri S Hoffman, Terri Woodard, Kari L Bjornard, Holly Hoefgen, Taryn Sandheinrich, Kenan Omurtag and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Online discussions about cancer and fertility: an analysis of Reddit threads.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sienna RuizWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Rachel MintzWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Amela SijecicWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Michelle EggersWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Aubri S HoffmanThe University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Terri WoodardThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Kari L BjornardRiley Hospital for Children at Indiana University Health, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Holly HoefgenWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Taryn SandheinrichWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Kenan OmurtagWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Ashley J HoustenWashington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. ahousten@wustl.edu.

Funding

The Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control NCI P50 CA244431
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFertility preservation is an increasingly important topic in adolescent and young adult cancer survivorship, yet treatments remain under-utilized, possibly due to lack of awareness and understanding. The internet is widely used by adolescents and young adults and has been proposed to fill knowledge gaps and advance high-quality, more equitable care. As a first step, this study analyzed the quality of current fertility preservation resources online and identified opportunities for improvement.

methodsWe conducted a systematic analysis of 500 websites to assess the quality, readability, and desirability of website features, and the inclusion of clinically relevant topics.

resultsThe majority of the 68 eligible websites were low quality, written at college reading levels, and included few features that younger patients find desirable. Websites mentioned more common fertility preservation treatments than promising experimental treatments, and could be improved with cost information, socioemotional impacts, and other equity-related fertility topics.

conclusionsCurrently, the majority of fertility preservation websites are about, but not for, adolescent and young adult patients. High-quality educational websites are needed that address outcomes that matter to teens and young adults, with a priority on solutions that prioritize equity. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Adolescent and young adult survivors have limited access to high-quality fertility preservation websites that are designed for their needs. There is a need for the development of fertility preservation websites that are clinically comprehensive, written at appropriate reading levels, inclusive, and desirable. We include specific recommendations that future researchers can use to develop websites that could better address AYA populations and improve the fertility preservation decision making process.

Indexed as

Fertility PreservationInternetNeoplasmsAdolescentAdultCancer SurvivorsConsumer Health InformationFemaleHumansMalePatient Education as TopicYoung AdultAdolescentCancerComprehensionDecision making—sharedFertilityFertility preservationInternetPatient educationSurvivorshipYoung adult

Identifiers

PMID37145331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.