ReviewJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024
Mapping ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of fertility preservation.
Review 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. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Algorithmic Prognostication in Female Oncofertility Counseling: Ethical Challenges of Bias, Autonomy, and Predictive Uncertainty.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Placental Histopathology and Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in ART Pregnancies: A Comparative Analysis of Homologous and Heterologous Techniques.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Attitudes of healthcare providers towards fertility preservation in Portugal: perceived support across indications and their ethical implications.BMC medical ethics · 2026Observational
- Barriers to fertility preservation among cancer patients in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: a scoping review.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- From Preservation to Creation: The Expanding Frontier of Fertility Preservation - Proceedings of the 2Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding fertility preservation among women of childbearing age in southern China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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
research questionThe study examines the ethical, legal, and social implications of fertility preservation, highlighting its importance across oncofertility, elective egg freezing, and posthumous assisted reproduction, as well as its impact on transgender individuals undergoing gender-affirming surgeries.
designA comprehensive analysis of 600 articles, focusing on a diverse range of disciplines, including bioethics, psychology, and sociology, to explore public and healthcare professionals' knowledge, patient experiences, and regulatory constraints.
resultsThe body of literature is growing, indicating increasing recognition of FP's significance. Key themes included the centrality of counseling and informed decision-making, especially in oncofertility and EEF, and ethical debates surrounding informed consent and the autonomy of involved individuals. The analysis underscored a western-centric bias in current research, emphasizing the need for more inclusive and culturally sensitive studies.
conclusionsThe study calls for a nuanced understanding of FP, advocating for policies that consider ethical, cultural, and social dimensions. It suggests the necessity for interdisciplinary research to address identified gaps, particularly in understanding non-Western perspectives and ensuring equitable access to FP services globally. Moreover, the review emphasizes the importance of integrating patient-centric approaches and ethical frameworks to guide FP practices and policies, ensuring they respect diverse values and meet individuals' needs.
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.