ArticleThe journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research2026
Nationwide Survey of Institutional Factors Related to the Use of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analogs for Ovarian Protection in Women Receiving Chemotherapy in Japan.
Article in The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to investigate institutional factors associated with the clinical implementation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogs for ovarian protection in women receiving chemotherapy among fertility preservation facilities in Japan.
methodsWe conducted a nationwide, cross-sectional, web-based survey between May 1 and May 31, 2025, targeting all 172 medical facilities accredited by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG) as fertility preservation service providers. The questionnaire assessed institutional characteristics, awareness of the recommendation of GnRH agonists for ovarian protection, and current clinical use of GnRH analogs. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify institutional factors associated with the use of GnRH agonists.
resultsA total of 128 facilities responded (response rate, 74.4%). Although 83.6% of facilities were aware of the recommendation of GnRH agonists for ovarian protection, only 26.6% reported experience using them. University hospitals (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 7.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0-20.6; p < 0.001) and facilities with a full-time "oncofertility navigator" (aOR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-13.6; p = 0.02) were more likely to report GnRH agonist use. Only 3.9% of facilities reported experience prescribing GnRH antagonists for ovarian protection, mainly in specific clinical situations such as urgent chemotherapy initiation or contraindications to GnRH agonists. Notably, 67.2% of responding facilities indicated that they would be more likely to use GnRH analogs for ovarian protection under the hypothetical condition that public insurance coverage were available.
conclusionDespite high awareness of recommendations for GnRH agonists, the clinical implementation of GnRH analogs for ovarian protection remains limited in Japan. Institutional characteristics and policy-related factors were associated with reported GnRH agonist use, although causal relationships cannot be inferred. These findings highlight a gap between current clinical practice and available evidence and underscore the need for careful evaluation of the role of GnRH analogs within existing fertility preservation frameworks.
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.