Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39096366›Full record

ReviewArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024

No guarantees: planned oocyte cryopreservation, not quite an insurance policy.

Sigal Klipstein, Lindsay Kelly, Sasmira Lalwani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Sigal KlipsteinInVia Fertility, Chicago, IL, USA.
Lindsay KellyFerring Pharmaceuticals Inc., 100 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, NJ, 07054, USA.
Sasmira LalwaniFerring Pharmaceuticals Inc., 100 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, NJ, 07054, USA. Sasmira.lalwani@ferring.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-5345-6282

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Planned oocyte cryopreservation (OC) has the potential to address the burden of the biological clock, giving women and individuals with ovaries more autonomy in choosing when to have children and with whom. In the United States, the annual number of OC cycles has grown significantly, yet many questions remain regarding planned OC. The field is starting to gather data on the clinical practice and social perspectives around planned oocyte cryopreservation, including the optimal age range at which to offer planned OC, what factors are most predictive of a successful outcome, and the optimal number of oocytes and ovarian stimulation cycles to achieve a live birth. There is a clear need for setting realistic expectations about the chance of success with OC; however, most patients have yet to return to thaw their oocytes, and outcomes data are limited. Clinical models have been developed to predict OC success based on surrogate markers such as age, number of oocytes retrieved, and anti-Müllerian hormone level. Patient education should emphasize the age-related decline in fertility, that eggs do not equal embryos, and that more than one cycle may be needed to obtain sufficient oocytes to have a reasonable chance of future success. While planned OC is not quite an insurance policy against future reproductive challenges, it provides the best option to date for expanding the reproductive window and maximizing reproductive options while navigating individual life circumstances in the context of family building.

Indexed as

CryopreservationFertility PreservationOocytesAdultFemaleHumansOocyte RetrievalOvulation InductionPregnancyUnited StatesEgg freezingFamily planningFertility preservationIn vitro fertilizationOvarian stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39096366
PMCPMC11393050

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.