ArticleReproductive medicine and biology
Emergency Fertility Preservation in Hematological Diseases: Ovarian Response and Real-World Outcomes From China.
Article in Reproductive medicine and biology. 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
Purpose: This study investigated ovarian response, safety, and reproductive outcomes in patients with hematological diseases undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for emergency fertility preservation (FP). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed female patients with hematological diseases receiving COS for emergency FP at our center from January 2016 to February 2025. Outcomes were compared by menstrual cycle phase at stimulation initiation, protocols, and chemotherapy exposure, with follow-up data on hematologic disease status, utilization of cryopreserved oocytes/embryos, ovarian function, marital, and reproductive collected. Results: No statistically significant differences in ovarian response were detected according to the phase of the menstrual cycle at stimulation initiation or between the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) and progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols. Chemotherapy exposure within 3 months was associated with lower oocyte and mature oocyte yield. Most patients underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and 92.31% developed premature ovarian insufficiency (POI). Six patients underwent warming of oocytes/embryos, achieving two live births including one twin. Conclusions: During emergency FP in patients with hematological diseases, random-start COS using either GnRH-ant or PPOS protocols yields comparable outcomes, supporting its feasibility and flexible application in time-constrained settings. Recent chemotherapy exposure may adversely affect COS outcomes and should be considered when planning treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.