ReviewInternational journal of women's dermatology2026
Fertility planning for women in medicine: a call for an active approach.
Review in International journal of women's dermatology, 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: Women in medicine often delay childbearing due to the competing priorities of training, finding a partner, and waiting for the "right time." Unfortunately, the steep decline in female fertility during a woman's mid to late 30s also often coincides with the completion of residency and/or fellowship training. Data show that women in medicine elect to have children later in life and that at least 1 in 4 female physicians suffer from infertility, a higher rate than in nonphysicians. It is essential to escalate the dialogue regarding family planning for female physicians and trainees. Objective: In this review, we discuss markers currently used to evaluate ovarian reserve, including anti-Müllerian hormone. We also discuss common methods for fertility preservation, including egg/oocyte and embryo cryopreservation, and unique logistical challenges this population faces in family planning. Methods: Narrative review of literature regarding fertility, markers of ovarian reserve, fertility preservation options, and family-planning challenges, particularly pertaining to the population of women in medicine. Results: Women in medicine experience higher rates of infertility compared with the general population and frequently delay childbearing due to training and career demands. Limitations: This is a narrative review and is limited by the available published literature, including a relative paucity of data surrounding fertility and fertility preservation outcomes among female physicians and trainees. Conclusions: Women in medicine must be viewed as a critical at-risk population for infertility with unique and multifactorial family-building challenges. This underrecognized group deserves heightened attention, with a special emphasis on the key elements of education, mentorship, and support.
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.