Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37636403›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

The first nationwide website survey of the availability and costs of medical and non-medical oocyte cryopreservation in Japan.

Hiromitsu Shirasawa, Yukiyo Kumazawa, Wataru Sato, Takuya Iwasawa, Kazue Togashi, Natsuki Ono, Ayaka Fujishima, Kazumasa Takahashi, Eri Maeda, Yukihiro Terada

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hiromitsu ShirasawaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan, Hondo 1-1-1, Akita City, Akita Prefecture, 10-0825, Japan.
Yukiyo KumazawaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan, Hondo 1-1-1, Akita City, Akita Prefecture, 10-0825, Japan.
Wataru SatoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan, Hondo 1-1-1, Akita City, Akita Prefecture, 10-0825, Japan.
Takuya IwasawaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan, Hondo 1-1-1, Akita City, Akita Prefecture, 10-0825, Japan.
Kazue TogashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan, Hondo 1-1-1, Akita City, Akita Prefecture, 10-0825, Japan.
Natsuki OnoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan, Hondo 1-1-1, Akita City, Akita Prefecture, 10-0825, Japan.
Ayaka FujishimaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan, Hondo 1-1-1, Akita City, Akita Prefecture, 10-0825, Japan.
Kazumasa TakahashiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan, Hondo 1-1-1, Akita City, Akita Prefecture, 10-0825, Japan.
Eri MaedaDepartment of Environmental Health Science and Public Health, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan, Hondo 1-1-1, Akita City, Akita Prefecture, 10-0825, Japan.
Yukihiro TeradaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan, Hondo 1-1-1, Akita City, Akita Prefecture, 10-0825, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research question: How does the cost-related oocyte cryopreservation (OoC) vary by the facility in Japan, and what data is provided on the websites about OoC procedures? Design: Website survey. The websites of all 621 facilities that provide assistive reproductive technology registered in Japan were surveyed in 2021. Data included the rates of explicit statements regarding the provision of OoC for only medical reasons (medical only group) or non-medical reasons (non-medical group). Based on whether or not facilities that perform OoC clearly stated the cost on their websites, we compared the costs of OoC and annual storage cost between medical only and non-medical groups. Furthermore, we examined the stated number of OoC procedures performed and their clinical outcomes. Results: Of the 621 facilities, 146 (23.5%) clearly stated that they offer OoC on their websites. Of the 88 medical only groups and 58 non-medical groups, 24 (27.3%) and 42 (72.4%) clearly stated the OoC cost, and 27 (30.7%) and 44 (75.9%) clearly states the annual oocyte storage cost, respectively. The OoC costs were significantly higher for the non-medical group than in the medical group. In the medical only group, the annual storage cost remained almost the same regardless of the number of oocytes, while in the non-medical group, the annual storage cost was 2-3 times higher than in the medical only group. Only 16 facilities (16/146, 11.0%) had mentioned the number of OoC procedures, and five facilities (3.4%) provided information on the clinical outcomes after OoC. Conclusion: Costs related to OoC are higher for the non-medical group in Japan. In addition, the websites contain scant information on the costs and clinical outcomes of OoC.

Indexed as

Annual storage costFertility preservationMedicalNon-medicalOocyte cryopreservation

Identifiers

PMID37636403
PMCPMC10448461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.