Observational studyJBRA assisted reproduction2023
Female couples undergoing assisted reproduction - choices and the importance of pregnancy and genetics.
Observational study in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of reproductive technologies for shared conception in same-sex female couples.Fertility and sterility · 2024Pooled it
- University students' opinion on gamete donor identification regimes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate female couples' reproductive choices, the importance given to genetics and pregnancy and their expectations regarding mother-child relationship.
methodsObservational study based on an anonymous survey applied to 217 patients during 2021. The survey was given to female couples under reproductive treatment in a private fertility clinic. The outcomes were divided into 3 main groups: the choice of their reproductive treatment, motherhood and biological links, and their plans for future reproductive treatments.
resultsMost patients found it easy to choose their treatments and roles. The choice was mainly driven by success rates, costs, and simplicity, except for ROPA for which sharing biological motherhood was the main reason. Most couples consider genetics and pregnancy important but, in the end, they believe they will have a similar connection to their child, regardless of the role played. In the future, some couples consider doing the same treatment while others consider inverting roles.
conclusionsMost female couples have no difficulty when it comes to choosing a reproductive treatment or role to play, mainly based on costs, success rates and the possibility of sharing biological motherhood with the ROPA method. These patients give great importance to genetics and pregnancy, but they expect a similar connection to their child regardless of the type of treatment and the roles played.
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.