ReviewFrontiers in reproductive health2026
Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue - what's known so far and future perspectives.
Review in Frontiers in reproductive health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cryopreservation is widely used across the life sciences to enable long-term storage of living cells and tissues for research or later clinical use. Its core principle is the arrest of biological activity at extremely low temperatures. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) has become an important fertility-preserving option for women and prepubertal girls facing gonadotoxic cancer therapies. Objective and rationale: This review summarizes the history of OTC and provides an overview of current procedures and their relevance for fertility preservation. It outlines key principles of cryopreservation, including different techniques, cryoprotective agents, molecular mechanisms, recent achievements, remaining challenges, and future perspectives. Although OTC is clinically established, protocols remain variable and require further optimization to improve tissue and follicle viability. Differences in media composition, cryoprotectants, slow freezing vs. vitrification, and thawing or warming procedures-along with ongoing debate over which technique is superior-highlight the need for research toward a standardized approach. Search methods: PubMed and MEDLINE were searched for literature published before June 2025 using the keywords Outcomes: The literature review shows that no universally standardized OTC protocols exist for slow freezing or vitrification. Although both methods are routinely applied worldwide, differences in crucial steps may affect tissue quality and clinical outcomes. Thawing and warming, also essential for tissue viability, is not standardized. These findings emphasize the need for continued optimization. Research on whole-organ freezing and nanowarming is also progressing. Nanowarming aims to enable uniform warming of larger, more complex tissues, with two promising technologies-electromagnetic warming and photothermal heating-currently evaluated in animal models. Wider implications: As oncological treatments advance and more young female cancer patients survive, the demand for effective and standardized OTC procedures continues to grow. OTC remains the preferred fertility-preservation method for patients unable to undergo ovarian stimulation or for prepubertal girls. This review outlines current methods, highlights advances in nanowarming and whole-organ cryopreservation, and provides future perspectives for improving OTC and related technologies.
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.