SynthesisReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2025
Effect of grafting site on reproductive outcomes following cryopreserved ovarian tissue transplantation: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 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.
- Technological Advances of Cryopreservation in Ovarian Tissue for Female Children: Exploring the Molecular Insights and Mechanisms.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Review
- Surgical approaches to fertility preservation in the cancer patient: current and future directions.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
Abstract
backgroundMore than 500 patients have received cryopreserved ovarian tissue transplantation (OTT) worldwide, resulting in over 200 live births. Although guidelines recognize OTT as an effective fertility preservation method, there is no consensus on the optimal grafting site of OTT. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess whether reproductive outcomes of OTT vary across different grafting sites.
methodsA literature search was conducted through March, 2024, in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library, using the following terms: 'patient', 'fertility preservation', 'ovarian tissue transplantation' and 'live birth'. Studies including 5 or more subjects were included. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, collected the data and assessed the risk of bias. Heterogeneity and publication bias were evaluated using the I² statistic and Egger's test, respectively. A fixed-effect meta-analysis was performed only if I² was 0%, otherwise a random-effect model was applied. The primary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR). The secondary outcomes included the proportion of women who became pregnant, those who had at least one live birth, and those who underwent repeat OTT.
resultsEighteen studies including 560 women were included. The estimated LBRs after transplantation to the remaining ovary and the pelvic peritoneum were 64% (20%-130%, I² = 74%) and 31% (15%-51%, I² = 21%), respectively. The LBRs after orthotopic transplantation (defined as transplantation to the remaining ovary, the pelvic peritoneum or both sites, which allowed spontaneous pregnancy), heterotopic transplantation and combined (orthotopic + heterotopic) transplantation were 44% (25%-69%, I² = 79%), 5% (0%-21%, I² = 0%) and 23% (4%-53%, I² = 19%), respectively. No publication bias was observed.
conclusionReproductive outcomes of OTT vary across different grafting sites. The LBR of orthotopic transplantation is higher than that of heterotopic transplantation. Additionally, the LBR of OTT to the remaining ovary is higher than that to the pelvic peritoneum. The remaining ovary may therefore be a more suitable site for women undergoing OTT to preserve future fertility. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023447618.
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.