The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Vitrification versus slow freezing for human ovarian tissue cryopreservation: a systematic review and meta-anlaysis
Open accessAbstract
Vitrification is a well-accepted procedure for cryopreservation of gametes and embryos. Less is known, however, about its performance in preserving ovarian tissue, for which slow freezing is the current convention. Increasing interest is being focused on vitrification, but there are as yet no standard protocols for its use with ovarian tissue. In part, this is because of the variety of cell types and complex nature of ovarian tissue. We performed a meta-analysis of 14 studies that compared vitrification with slow freezing for cryopreservation of ovarian tissue. In the pooled analysis, there was no significant difference between the two methods in terms of the proportion of intact primordial follicles, but vitrification was associated with significantly less DNA damage. Secondary endpoints included the number of stromal cells, significantly higher with vitrification, and primordial follicle density, which did not differ between the two methods. The present meta-analysis suggests that vitrification may be more effective than slow freezing, with less primordial follicular DNA strand breaks and better preservation of stromal cells. These advantages should lead to improved ovarian function after transplantation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Siegel, R., Naishadham, D., & Jemal, A. (2012) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20138 · Cited by 10,679
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 · Cited by 10,349
Cited by
ESHRE guideline: female fertility preservation
The ESHRE Guideline Group on Female Fertility Preservation, Anderson, R. A., Amant, F., Braat, D., D'Angelo, A., Chuva de Sousa Lopes, S. M., Demeestere, I., Dwek, S., Frith, L., Lambertini, M., et al. (2020) · Human Reproduction Open · doi:10.1093/hropen/hoaa052 · Cited by 748
Ice Inhibition for Cryopreservation: Materials, Strategies, and Challenges
Chang, T., & Zhao, G. (2021) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202002425 · Cited by 419
Metadata
- Authors
- Shi, Q., Xie, Y., Wang, Y., & Li, S.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2017-08-17
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 8538-8538
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2744808419
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Vitrification versus slow freezing for human ovarian tissue cryopreservation: a systematic review and meta-anlaysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-017-09005-7
- The paper
- Shi, Q., Xie, Y., Wang, Y., & Li, S. (2017). Vitrification versus slow freezing for human ovarian tissue cryopreservation: a systematic review and meta-anlaysis. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09005-7
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.