Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38824591›Full record

SynthesisReproductive health2024

A systematic review of assisted and third-party reproduction guidelines regarding management and care of donors.

Elnaz Iranifard, Samira Ebrahimzadeh Zagami, Malihe Amirian, Hossein Ebrahimipour, Robab Latifnejad Roudsari

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Reproductive Donors' Needs and Preferences: A Mixed-methods Systematic Review.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Elnaz IranifardStudent Research Committee, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 9137913199, Mashhad, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1332-9094
Samira Ebrahimzadeh ZagamiNursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashad University of Medical Sciences, 9177949025, Mashhad, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6210-8904
Malihe AmirianDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fellowship of Infertility, School of Medicine, Milad Infertility Treatment Center of Mashhad, University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, 9137913316, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6413-3687
Hossein EbrahimipourDepartment of Health Economics and Management, School of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 9196773113, Mashhad, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1811-372X
Robab Latifnejad RoudsariNursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashad University of Medical Sciences, 9177949025, Mashhad, Iran. rlatifnejad@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1438-8822

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGamete and embryo donors face complex challenges affecting their health and quality of life. Healthcare providers need access to well-structured, evidence-based, and needs-based guidance to care for gamete and embryo donors. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to synthesize current assisted and third-party reproduction guidelines regarding management and care of donors.

methodsThe databases of ISI, PubMed, Scopus, and websites of organizations related to the assisted reproduction were searched using the keywords of "third party reproduction", "gamete donation", "embryo donation", "guidelines", "committee opinion", and "best practice", without time limit up to July 2023. All the clinical or ethical guidelines and best practice statements regarding management and care for gamete and embryo donors written in the English language were included in the study. Quality assessment was carried using AGREE II tool. Included documents were reviewed and extracted data were narratively synthesized.

resultsIn this systematic review 14 related documents were reviewed of which eight were guidelines, three were practice codes and three were committee opinions. Five documents were developed in the United States, three in Canada, two in the United Kingdom, one in Australia, and one in Australia and New Zealand. Also, two guidelines developed by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology were found. Management and care provided for donors were classified into four categories including screening, counseling, information provision, and ethical considerations.

conclusionWhile the current guidelines include some recommendations regarding the management and care of gamete/embryo donors in screening, counseling, information provision, and ethical considerations, nevertheless some shortcomings need to be addressed including donors' psychosocial needs, long-term effects of donation, donors' follow-up cares, and legal and human rights aspects of donation. Therefore, it is needed to conduct robust and well-designed research studies to fill the knowledge gap about gamete and embryo donors' needs, to inform current practices by developing evidence-based guidelines.

Indexed as

Reproductive Techniques, AssistedTissue DonorsFemaleHumansOocyte DonationPractice Guidelines as TopicEgg donorEmbryo donorGamete donorGuidelinesReproductive donationSperm donorThird-party reproduction

Identifiers

PMID38824591
PMCPMC11143578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.