| Title |
Testicular Tissue Cryopreservation and Ethical Considerations: A Scoping Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-017-9781-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Angel Petropanagos |
| Abstract |
Testicular tissue cryopreservation (TTCP) aims to preserve the future option of genetic reproduction for prepubescent cancer patients who are at risk of infertility as a result of their cancer therapies. This technology is experimental and currently only offered in the research context. As TTCP moves towards becoming more widely available, it is imperative that healthcare providers recognize the complex ethical issues surrounding this technology. This scoping review study identifies and assesses the range and depth of ethical concerns related to this testicular tissue cryopreservation technology. At present, no such scoping review of ethical concerns exists in the TTCP literature. The forty-three full-text articles included in this study yielded twenty-two different ethical considerations discussed in relation to TTCP. It was observed that these ethical considerations fit within a mainstream Principlism approach to bioethics. Accordingly, there are ethical gaps in the TTCP literature that can be identified with alternative moral lenses. In particular, it was found that ethical concerns related to context and relational aspects of identity were absent in nearly all ethical examinations of TTCP. Furthermore, only 9 per cent of articles reviewed in this study focused primarily on the ethics of TTCP, thus demonstrating a need for further in depth ethical analyses of this technology. The results of this study are important for supporting the ethical provision of TTCP and can contribute to policy and guideline development. The findings of this study demonstrate the need for greater depth and diversity in analyses of ethical considerations related to this technology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 22% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 3 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 26% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2017.
All research outputs
#20,412,387
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#567
of 601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,927
of 308,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.