ReviewInternational journal of nursing studies advances2026
Global disparities in fertility preservation among young breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of utilization rates and associated factors.
Review in International journal of nursing studies advances, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Women who develop breast cancer at the age of 40 years or younger often face considerable barriers to fertility preservation services. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined global fertility preservation utilization rates and the factors associated with uptake. Objectives: To synthesize the evidence on (1) global fertility preservation utilization rates and (2) factors associated with fertility preservation uptake among young breast cancer patients. Methods: We systematically searched five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO) and trial registries for studies published from January 2010 to August 2026 involving women aged 40 years or younger with breast cancer. Proportions and odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I Results: Eighteen studies (n = 13,394) were included. The pooled fertility preservation utilization rate was 26.8% (95% CI: 20.0-34.1%; I Conclusions: Access to fertility preservation appears inequitable worldwide, although substantial heterogeneity and imprecision in some regional estimates preclude definitive cross-regional rankings. Younger age, higher education, partnership status, and insurance coverage were associated with fertility preservation uptake. Because the evidence is observational and heterogeneous, causal inferences should be drawn with caution. Policy reforms supporting insurance coverage and standardized training may improve access to fertility preservation, but further high-quality research is needed.
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.