ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024
Non-used cryopreserved sperm among oncological patients: extra-long-term follow-up and analysis.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cryopreserved testicular spermatozoa among patients with azoospermia.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate factors influencing long-term utilization and disposal patterns of cryopreserved semen straws in oncological patients.
methodsThis retrospective study included all men who cryopreserved semen due to cancer between October 1993 and December 2021. To assess non-used cryopreserved sperm straws, we investigated the following parameters: cryopreserved semen and usage for fertility treatments versus disposal, summarized by total non-used cases. A Kaplan-Meier curve was used to describe last usage and disposal requests over a 15-year analysis. A Log-rank test was applied to compare between age and paternal status categories.
resultsThe cohort consisted of 445 patients. Of these, 55 patients utilized thawed semen for fertility treatments, and 65 opted for disposals, leaving 325 patients who neither used nor disposed of their cryopreserved straws. Our findings revealed a distinct pattern based on age, with the youngest age group (< 25 years) exhibiting significantly lower utilization and disposal rates compared to older patient groups. Additionally, men without children exhibited significantly fewer disposal requests compared to fathers. The median cryopreserved straws were 10 (interquartile range, 6 to 17), while the median used straws were only 2 (interquartile range, 2 to 6). DISCUSSION: Our study brings attention to the additional and needless burden of preservation from both patient and preserved straw perspectives. Implementing a policy based on a cost-effective approach, incorporating time and straw limits, and considering demographic characteristics, could enhance efficiency and necessitate patient consent before preservation.
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.