ArticleThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2025
Consequences for Australian Recipients of Cross Border Oocyte Donation in South Africa: Double Embryo Transfer and Donor Anonymity.
Article in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDue to the shortage of oocyte donors in Australia, Australian women increasingly travel overseas for oocyte donation. South Africa is a recognised 'repro-hub' due to the accessibility of relatively affordable, high-quality assisted reproductive technology services and the availability of donors. In contrast to Australia, where only known and identity release altruistic gamete donation is permitted, in South Africa, oocyte donors are anonymous and receive fixed compensation.
aimsTo explore the consequences for Australian recipients of cross-border oocyte donation (CBOD) in South Africa. MATERIALS AND
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 Australian recipients who had at least one live birth after oocyte donation in South Africa between 2012 and 2020. Interviews were transcribed and transcripts analysed thematically.
resultsMost participants had failed assisted reproductive treatment in Australia before travelling to South Africa. Inability to secure an Australian donor led to CBOD. Ten recipients had at least one double embryo transfer (DET). Of the 15 pregnancies, participants reported one third were twin pregnancies. Some had more than one double embryo transfer cycle. Donors were anonymous, creating disparity around access to genetic information between children conceived with an Australian donor and those conceived with a South African donor. Some Australian recipients used sleuthing methods to locate donor siblings whose recipient parents had used the same donor.
conclusionsDouble embryo transfers increase the possibility of multiple pregnancy and its associated risks of poorer obstetric outcomes, and donor anonymity prevents donor conceived children's ability to officially access information about the donor through donor registers. Strategies to address the shortage of Australian oocyte donors could alleviate the need for CBOD. Education about the consequences of DET and donor anonymity is needed.
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.