ArticleReproductive medicine and biology
Reproductive outcomes of embryo cryopreservation and transfer at the start-up phase of fertility preservation in Japan.
Article in Reproductive medicine and biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Utilization and Fertility Preservation Outcomes in Women Undergoing Embryo Cryopreservation Before Breast Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Analysis.Clinical breast cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Safety of laparoscopic surgery for ovarian tissue cryopreservation in pediatric patients.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Trends in fertility preservation treatments in Japan until 2023: analysis of the Japan Oncofertility Registry.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Out-of-pocket fertility preservation expenses: data from a Japanese nationwide multicenter survey.International journal of clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Reproductive outcomes of embryo cryopreservation and transfer at the start-up phase of fertility preservation in Japan.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To verify the effectiveness of embryo transfer (ET) using cryopreserved embryo as fertility preservation (FP). Methods: This study was a questionnaire survey. The total number of embryo cryopreservation (EC) was investigated between 2014 and 2020. And for patients who underwent ET among study period, details of EC, outcome of ET, number of live births, and mortality were investigated. Results: Of the 150 facilities, 114 responded (76.0%). A total of 1420 EC were performed during the study period; and ET was performed for 417 patients. Breast cancer was the most common primary disease. A total of 199 live births (including prospective) were obtained by ET; 1.7 EC and 2.2 ET were performed per patient, and live birth rate was 21.4% per ET (28.1% on 35-37-year-old patients). The number of EC and ET increased with age. The final birth rate, including pregnancies other than FP, was 51.8%. Ovarian stimulation with aromatase inhibitors was commonly used, although with no effect on live birth rates. Random start stimulation was also common, experienced by 36.3% of breast cancer patients. Conclusion: Reproductive outcomes of ETs following EC as FP are acceptable. This research project was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000043664).
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.