Planned oocyte cryopreservation (Planned OC): systematic review and meta‐analysis of cost‐efficiency and patients’ perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advances in vitrification techniques have enabled planned oocyte cryopreservation ('Planned OC'). OBJECTIVES: To explore the cost-efficiency and utilisation of planned OC, as well as patients' perspectives on the process. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database and PsychINFO, for all relevant studies published between January 2007 and December 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: The protocol followed PRISMA guidelines in PECO format, and was registered with PROSPERO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers evaluated all manuscripts for inclusion eligibility. Authors were contacted for missing data. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias and for heterogeneity. Weighted effects were measured and plotted. MAIN RESULTS: The search yielded 12 545 records, of which 43 were included. Planned OC is cost-efficient at 35, assuming 60% utilisation; and at 37 assuming utilising donor sperm when necessary. At 38 it is cost-efficient to defer planned OC in favour of undergoing 2 IVF cycles. Currently, utilisation of banked-oocytes within 22-58 months, is up to 15%. Nine percent of warmed banked oocytes result in life births. Online resources and treating physicians are equally important sources of information regarding planned OC. Most patients think planned OC is ideal before age 35 and are not fully aware of what the process entails and tend to overestimate the success rates. The main barrier to wider endorsement of planned OC is being wary of potential health implications or of limited success. CONCLUSION: Planned OC is an adequate method for preserving fertility. However, knowledge gaps result in under-utilisation leading to reduced cost-efficiency. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Identifying facilitators and barriers for wider adoption of banking oocytes can enhance the cost-efficiency of this modality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".