Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39959763›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2025

Clinical and ethical perspectives of ovarian stimulation and oocyte cryopreservation in adolescents: 6 years experience from a tertiary centre.

Sania Latif, Melanie Davies, Emily Vaughan, Dimitrios Mavrelos, Stuart Lavery, Ephia Yasmin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

6 authors.

Sania LatifInstitute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2578-322X
Melanie DaviesInstitute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Emily VaughanReproductive Medicine Unit, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Dimitrios MavrelosInstitute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Stuart LaveryInstitute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Ephia YasminInstitute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat are the clinical and ethical challenges of performing ovarian stimulation and oocyte cryopreservation in adolescents and the barriers to providing treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our study shows that, in one of the largest case series to date in this population, post-pubertal adolescents as young as age 13 years can undergo ovarian stimulation and oocyte cryopreservation with a response comparable to adults. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Fertility preservation in adolescents has not been well studied, with little data available in the existing literature. Referrals for fertility preservation in adolescents are increasing due to developments in childhood cancer treatments, which have led to a growing population of children at risk of developing premature ovarian insufficiency. Those with certain benign conditions or gender incongruence also face this challenge. All established fertility preservation guidelines state that where there is a risk to fertility, oocyte cryopreservation should be offered to post-pubertal females. However, counselling and consenting young people about fertility decisions is an ethically complex area, and assessing capacity to consent in this age group is not straightforward. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of 182 referrals for fertility preservation counselling to a specialist unit, and we present outcomes for the 33 adolescents who underwent 36 cycles of ovarian stimulation and oocyte cryopreservation between January 2018 and January 2024. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsWe included patients aged 13-18 years who underwent ovarian stimulation and oocyte cryopreservation for fertility preservation due to high or intermediate risk of gonadotoxicity from medical or surgical treatment at a public-funded specialist unit. The primary outcome was oocyte yield; secondary outcomes included oocyte maturity rate, complications, and dropout rate. Data were retrieved from a prospectively managed database. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There was a total of 182 referrals received, and of these, 33 patients underwent 36 cycles of ovarian stimulation and oocyte cryopreservation. Indications for fertility preservation included malignancy LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: In view of concerns regarding increased aneuploidy rates in this age group compared to women in their twenties, there is a need for long-term outcome studies expanding on our findings with data on livebirths to support clinicians needing to counsel patients and perform oocyte cryopreservation in adolescents. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsClinician experience, correct setting, and availability of funding will enable a permissive environment for oocyte cryopreservation in adolescents. In our experience, transvaginal egg collection is an accepted procedure when counselled appropriately. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was received for this work. No competing interests are declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Indexed as

adolescencecryopreservationegg freezingfemale infertilityfertility preservationoocyte cryopreservationoocyte qualityovarian stimulationovary

Identifiers

PMID39959763
PMCPMC11825388

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.