ReviewPorto biomedical journal
Lesbian shared IVF: the ROPA method: a systematic review.
Review in Porto biomedical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Erratum: Lesbian shared IVF: the ROPA method: a systematic review.Porto biomedical journalArticle
- Update and new advances in fertility preservation and cancer.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ROPA (Reception of Oocytes from PArtner) method, also known as lesbian shared IVF (in vitro fertilization), is an assisted reproduction technique for female couples, in which one of the women provides the oocytes (genetic mother) and the other receives the embryo and gestates (gestational mother). As a double parented method, it is the only way lesbian women may biologically share motherhood. This is a narrative review of data concerning ROPA published in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. A total of 35 articles were included, 10 about motivations for undergoing ROPA, 13 about ethics or legislation, 4 about motherhood, and 8 studies reporting clinical outcomes. Despite being used for more than a decade, there is a paucity of data regarding this technique in scientific literature. Most women choose this technique to share biological motherhood, but medical issues may also justify its use. Many ethical and legal issues are still to be solved. Despite the small number of studies, data regarding the outcomes of this technique and the resulting motherhood are reassuring.
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.