ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024
Counseling and cryopreservation: evaluation of patient-reported counseling and choice on method of cancer-related fertility preservation.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePrior to cancer treatment, patients make decisions on whether to undergo fertility preservation (FP) and the method of FP. We sought to learn more about counseling and decision-making on the method of cancer-related FP.
methodsA cross-sectional 26-item online survey was administered to patients with ovaries who underwent cancer-related FP. Associations between demographics and the FP method were made through estimates of risk difference, with a 95% confidence interval. Open-ended responses were analyzed using the constant comparative method.
resultsA total of 240 respondents completed the survey: 52% underwent oocyte cryopreservation (OC), 29% underwent embryo cryopreservation (EC), and 19% underwent both oocyte and embryo cryopreservation (OC/EC). Most respondents agreed that if they were to go through the process again, they would make the same decision about FP (80% EC, 72% OC, 59% OC/EC). Women ≥ 35 years reported being counseled more that embryos were superior compared to younger women (risk difference 46%, CI 32.8, 59.1), however were not more likely to freeze embryos (risk difference 6.2%, CI - 9.8, 22.2). Women in long-term relationships reported they were counseled more that embryos were superior compared to those single/dating (risk difference 27%, CI 18.1, 35.9). All women in long-term relationships reported undergoing EC, while the majority of single/dating women reported undergoing OC (74.6%).
conclusionMost women who have undergone cancer-related FP reported they would choose the same FP method again. Women in long-term relationships or ≥ 35 years reported they were more likely to be counseled that EC is superior; however, only women in long-term relationships were more likely to freeze embryos.
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.