Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 282

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Transplantation of frozen-thawed ovarian tissue: an update on worldwide activity published in peer-reviewed papers and on the Danish cohort

Open access
Gellert, S. E., Pors, S. E., Kristensen, S. G., Bay-Bjørn, A. M., Ernst, E., Yding Andersen, C.·2018·Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to review all peer-reviewed published reports of women receiving ovarian tissue transplantation (OTT) with frozen/thawed tissue (OTC) with respect to age, diagnosis, transplantation site, fertility outcome, and potential side effects, including data from all women in the Danish program. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in PubMed combined with results from all patients who had received OTT in Denmark up to December 2017. RESULTS: OTT has been reported from 21 different countries comprising a total of 360 OTT procedures in 318 women. In nine women, malignancy was diagnosed after OTT; none were considered to be directly caused by the OTT. Despite a potential under reporting of cancer recurrence, there is currently no evidence to suggest that OTT causes reseeding of the original cancer. Renewed ovarian endocrine function was reported in 95% of the women. Half of all children born following OTT resulted from natural conception, and newborns were reported to be healthy except for one neonate with a chromosome anomaly with a family disposition. Women who conceived after OTT were significantly younger than those who failed. CONCLUSION: This study found no indications of sufficient numbers of malignant cells present in the ovarian tissue to cause recurrence of cancer after OTT. Further, it is unlikely that OTC affects the well-being of children born. OTC is now an established method of fertility preservation in Denmark with public reimbursement. The current data encourage that women who require gonadotoxic treatment should be offered an individual evaluation considering fertility preservation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10815-018-1144-2

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 51 references

Cited by

See all 282

Metadata

Authors
Gellert, S. E., Pors, S. E., Kristensen, S. G., Bay-Bjørn, A. M., Ernst, E., & Yding Andersen, C.
Venue
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Published
2018-03-01
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
561-570
ISSN
  • 0740-7769 (ISSN-L)
  • 1058-0468
  • 1573-7330
OpenAlex
W2791193048
Cited by
282
References
51
FWCI
31.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Transplantation of frozen-thawed ovarian tissue: an update on worldwide activity published in peer-reviewed papers and on the Danish cohort. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10815-018-1144-2
The paper
Gellert, S. E., Pors, S. E., Kristensen, S. G., Bay-Bjørn, A. M., Ernst, E., & Yding Andersen, C. (2018). Transplantation of frozen-thawed ovarian tissue: an update on worldwide activity published in peer-reviewed papers and on the Danish cohort. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1144-2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.