ArticleHuman reproduction open2025
Return rates for the use of ovarian tissue cryopreserved prior to gonadotoxic treatment as fertility preservation: a systematic review.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast Cancer and Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation: SWOT Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Geographic patterns of ovarian tissue cryopreservation utilisation across age groups in a nationwide multicentre cohort.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue - what's known so far and future perspectives.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionWhat is the return rate for the use of ovarian tissue cryopreserved for fertility preservation prior to gonadotoxic treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: The return rate for the use of ovarian tissue cryopreserved for fertility preservation prior to gonadotoxic treatment is modest, with most studies reporting rates of ≤5%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A considerable number of years have passed since ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) was first implemented for fertility preservation, and many studies now provide long-term follow-up data, including return rates. This allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of OTC as a fertility preservation option and of the characteristics of the population to whom it is offered. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for MeSH words, Emtree terms, and text words related to return rates for the use of ovarian tissue cryopreserved prior to gonadotoxic treatment up to March 2025, in the English language. There were no limitations regarding the year of publication. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING
methodsEach study was screened independently by two reviewers who were blinded to each other's choices. We included studies reporting the proportion of women who returned for autologous ovarian tissue transplantation (AOTT) among those who had undergone OTC. We excluded studies in languages other than English, abstracts without full text, letters to the editor, and case series involving fewer than 25 females undergoing OTC. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies. The overall certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Out of 2748 studies, 25 were included in the review. All studies were cohort studies that included from 26 to 2475 participants. Of the 25 studies, 18 reported a return rate of ≤5%, 6 reported a return rate of >5 to ≤10% while only 1 study reported a return rate of 14%. The overall quality of the studies in reporting the return rate for the use of cryopreserved ovarian tissue, as assessed using GRADE, was moderate. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: In most studies, follow-up occurred within the overall study period, and only one study reported a minimum follow-up duration. Since AOTT may occur several years after OTC, limited follow-up time may bias the results. Most studies included both pediatric patients and adults undergoing OTC, without accounting for participants who had not yet reached reproductive age or desired pregnancy when calculating return rates at the end of follow-up. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsThe modest utilization rates found in this study emphasize the need for careful consideration to avoid subjecting women to potentially unnecessary and costly treatment. This highlights the need for future studies with longer follow-up time to assess patterns of tissue utilization in relation to diagnosis, treatment protocol, and age, thereby setting criteria in the selection of patients who would actually benefit from OTC. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study is funded by the independent research fund Denmark (Grant ID 10.46540/4308-00130B). A.P. has received grants (payment to institution) and consultancy fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Cryos; honoraria from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, and Organon; and support for attending meetings and/or travel (payment to institution) from Gedeon Richter. These companies had no role in the study. The remaining authors have no conflicts or interests to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study is registered in PROSPERO, ID number CRD42024537107.
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.