ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Discrepancies between application and genetic consultation during routine ovum donor screening in large fertility network.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the personal and family medical history information obtained from a written application to a formal genetic risk assessment performed in consultation with a certified genetic counselor, as well as categorize and qualify any discrepant information.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of female subjects applying to become deidentified ovum donors, between ages 21 and 31 and who were determined to be eligible candidates with initial application and interview. Information provided by prospective ovum donors in their self-reported written application was compared to their genetic risk assessment performed in consultation with a certified genetic counselor, which documents family demographics and health history for a minimum of three generations. Discrepancies were categorized as relating to a health change or no health change (demographic) and then grouped by number of changes. Demographic changes included ages, number of family members, and age at time of death. Health changes were any new information relating to a health condition in prospective ovum donors and/or any family members. RESULT(S): A total of 600 randomly selected ovum donor applications and the associated genetic risk assessments were compared; 84% of these applicants reported novel health information during the genetic risk assessment. Of the total 600, 19% no longer met American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) or internal program guidelines for eligibility.
conclusionsGenetic risk assessment performed by a certified genetic counselor provides a more comprehensive representation of personal and family medical history and accurate assessment of the eligibility of an ovum donor compared to self-reported information alone.
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.