ArticleJAMA network open2024
Utilization of Cryopreserved Oocytes in Patients With Poor Ovarian Response After Planned Oocyte Cryopreservation.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reduced ovarian reserve among female offspring of consanguineous marriages in the Middle East-a mini review.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Cumulative pregnancy and cumulative live birth rates and perinatal and obstetric outcomes in POSEIDON patients: insights from 19,371 IVF/ICSI cycles.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Female fertility preservation: 25 years of progress, expanding indications and future prospects.Human reproduction update · 2026Review
- LSD1 maintains oocyte quality by epigenetically repressing CAMK2β to control granulosa cell-oocyte communication.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- No guarantees: planned oocyte cryopreservation, not quite an insurance policy.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Female fertility preservation for family planning: a position statement of the Italian Society of Fertility and Sterility and Reproductive Medicine (SIFES-MR).Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Poor ovarian response (POR) to stimulation may impact patients' desire or need to utilize cryopreserved oocytes for family building in the future. These findings, captured by Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) national data, underscore the need for tailored counseling and further research into the decision-making processes influencing oocyte utilization. Objective: To examine the association of ovarian response to stimulation and the number of vitrified oocytes with the likelihood and timing of patients returning for oocyte utilization following planned oocyte cryopreservation (OC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data in the SART Clinical Outcome Reporting System for patients in US fertility clinics and data was used for eligible patients who underwent planned OC from January 2014 through December 2020. Data were analyzed from November 2022 to June 2023. Main outcomes and measures: The association between number of oocytes cryopreserved on return rate to utilize cryopreserved oocytes and the time from vitrification to warming. Results: A total of 67 893 autologous oocyte freezing cycles were performed in the US between 2014 and 2020, among 47 363 patients (mean [SD] age, 34.5 [4.7] years). Of these, 6421 (13.5%) were classified as patients with POR, with fewer than 5 oocytes vitrified across all ovarian stimulation cycles. A total of 1203 patients (2.5%) returned for oocyte warming and utilization. The rate of return was significantly higher in the POR group, with 260 (4.0%) returning compared with 943 (2.3%) in the normal responder group (P < .001). This trend was most notable in the age 30 to 34 years (warm cycle, 46 of 275 [16.7%] vs no warm cycle, 982 of 11 743 [8.4%]; P < .001) and age 35 to 39 years groups (warm cycle, 124 of 587 [21.1%] vs no warm cycle, 3433 of 23 012 [14.9%]; P < .001). The time elapsed from vitrification to warming was comparable between patients with POR (mean [SD], 716.1 [156.1] days) and normal responders (803.8 [160.7] days). A multivariate analysis adjusted for age, clinic region in the US, body mass index, and history of endometriosis was conducted to identify factors associated with the utilization of oocytes. The analysis revealed that having fewer than 5 oocytes vitrified was associated with higher odds of utilizing oocytes (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.76). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study reveals a distinct pattern in the utilization of cryopreserved oocytes among patients undergoing planned OC in the US. Despite the increase in number of patients pursuing OC, there is a notably low rate of return to utilize previously vitrified oocytes; notably, patients with POR are more likely to return, although the time to return is similar to those with normal ovarian response.
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.