Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marina, S.
Right arrow Articles by Vergés, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Marina, S.
Right arrow Articles by Vergés, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 14, No. 11, 2770-2776, November 1999
© 1999 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Oocyte donor selection from 554 candidates

Simón Marina1,2,3, Rosabel Expósito1,2, Fernando Marina1,2, Javier Nadal1,2, Manel Masramón1,2 and Alfonso Vergés1,2

1 Instituto de Reproducción CEFER (CENTRO MEDICO TEKNON), Marquesa de Vilallonga 12, 08017 Barcelona and 2 Fundació Pro-Donació D'Òvuls, Spain

Oocyte donation is a technique in full expansion in the field of human reproduction. The main problem with this technique is the shortage of oocytes. In our programme, prospective donors are selected from anonymous, well-informed university students over 18 years of age, who give their informed consent in writing. Before being accepted as donors, the candidates' personal and family medical histories were taken and they were given a gynaecological examination, genital ultrasonography, and analysed for syphilis, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis B and C, coagulation factor VIII, fetal haemoglobin and karyotype. The donors received economic compensation of about 750 euros. Over the last 6 years, 554 medical histories have been taken. Fifty-eight candidates (10.5%) were rejected because of previous family or personal pathologies. Only 243 out of 496 (49%) continued the study. Sixteen candidates (7%) were rejected as a result of gynaecological problems and ultrasonographic results; and 12 (4.9%) as a result of their blood test results; 215 donors were accepted (38.8% of the original population). Other options for recruiting oocyte donors are commented on and we argue that the methodology described here is the most suitable one.

Key words: gamete donors/oocyte donation/ovum donation/screening oocyte donors/student oocyte donors

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Instituto de Reproducción CEFER (CENTRO MEDICO TEKNON), Marquesa de Vilallonga 12, 08017 Barcelona, Spain


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
S. Yee, J. A. Hitkari, and E. M. Greenblatt
A follow-up study of women who donated oocytes to known recipient couples for altruistic reasons
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2007; 22(7): 2040 - 2050.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
O. van den Akker
A review of family donor constructs: Current research and future directions
Hum. Reprod. Update, March 1, 2006; 12(2): 91 - 101.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
N. Fosas, F. Marina, P.J. Torres, I. Jove, P. Martin, N. Perez, N. Arnedo, and S. Marina
The births of five Spanish babies from cryopreserved donated oocytes
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2003; 18(7): 1417 - 1421.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
N. Garrido, J.L. Zuzuarregui, M. Meseguer, C. Simon, J. Remohi, and A. Pellicer
Sperm and oocyte donor selection and management: experience of a 10 year follow-up of more than 2100 candidates
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2002; 17(12): 3142 - 3148.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
E. Blyth
Subsidized IVF: the development of 'egg sharing' in the UK
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2002; 17(12): 3254 - 3259.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.