Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38727983›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2024

Fertility Preservation in Children and Adolescents: Where We Are and Where We Are Going.

Campbell Vogt, Neha R Malhotra

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
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

2 authors.

Campbell VogtIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA.
Neha R MalhotraIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA. neha.malhotra@mountsinai.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review will describe current pediatric and adolescent fertility preservation methodologies and the ethical concerns surrounding these procedures, as well as highlight recent research that may pave the way for the development of new fertility preservation options. RECENT

findingsResearch is ongoing to allow prepubertal patients, particularly those with testes, to be able to have biologic children in the future. Studies on sperm in vitro maturation highlight the importance of supporting the spermatogonial stem cell niche for the development of mature sperm. The live birth of a rhesus macaque from in vitro fertilization using prepubertal testicular tissue and in vivo matured sperm gives hope to future human births. For patients with ovaries, prior work has led to successful fertility but further research is underway to refine these techniques and optimize outcomes. Organoid scaffolds have shown promise when being used for in vitro oocyte maturation. For children and adolescents undergoing gonadotoxic treatment, such as chemotherapy, or hormonal treatment, such as gender-affirming hormone therapy, future fertility potential may be negatively impacted. It is recommended that fertility preservation (FP) be offered to these patients and families prior to undergoing treatment. Fertility preservation for postpubertal patients mimics that in adults. For prepubertal children, however, the options are limited and in some cases still experimental. It is essential that this work continues so that we may offer children and adolescents the right to an open future and preserve their fertility potential.

Indexed as

Fertility PreservationAdolescentChildCryopreservationFemaleHumansMaleFertility preservationIn vitro gamete maturationPediatric oncologyTransgender medicine

Identifiers

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.