Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15266431›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Surgery or embolisation for varicocele in subfertile men.

J L Evers, J A Collins

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Varicocele and male infertility.Nature reviews. Urology · 2017
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Effect of varicocelectomy on male infertility.Korean journal of urology · 2014
    Review
  13. Surgical management of male infertility: an update.Translational andrology and urology · 2014
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

J L EversDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Academisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht, P.O. Box 5800, Maastricht, Netherlands, 6202 AZ.
J A Collins

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA varicocele is a meshwork of distended blood vessels in the scrotum, usually left-sided, due to dilatation of the spermatic vein. Although the concept that varicocele causes, and varicocelectomy cures, male subfertility has been around for almost fifty years, the mechanisms by which varicocele would affect fertility have not yet been satisfactorily explained, and neither have the mechanisms by which varicocelectomy would restore fertility. Furthermore, it has been questioned whether a causal relation exists at all between the distension of the pampiniform plexus and impairment of fertility.

objectivesTo evaluate the effect of varicocele treatment on pregnancy rate in subfertile couples. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (searched 12 Sept 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004) and reference lists of articles. In addition, we hand searched 22 specialist journals in the field from their first issue until 2004. We also checked cross references, references from review articles, and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were included if they were relevant to the clinical question posed, if they reported pregnancy rates as an outcome measure, and if they reported data in treated (surgical ligation or radiological embolization of the internal spermatic vein) and untreated groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. One was an extension of a previously published study (Nieschlag 1995/1998), which left eight studies for analysis (Nilsson 1979; Breznik 1993; Madgar 1995; Yamamoto 1996; Nieschlag 1995/1998; Grasso 2000; Unal 2001; Krause 2002). All eight only included men from couples with subfertility problems, one (Madgar 1995) excluded men with sperm counts <5 mill/mL, one (Krause 2002) men with sperm counts <2 mill/mL and/or progressive motility <10%, two trials involving clinical varicoceles included some men with normal semen analysis (Nilsson 1979; Breznik 1993). Three studies (Yamamoto 1996; Grasso 2000; Unal 2001) specifically addressed only men with subclinical varicoceles. Two authors independently screened potentially relevant trials. Any differences of opinion were resolved by consensus (none occurred for this review). Studies were excluded from meta-analysis if they made comparisons other than those specified above. MAIN

resultsThe combined Peto odds ratio (OR) of the eight studies is 1.10 (95%CI 0.73 to 1.68), indicating no benefit of varicocele treatment over expectant management in subfertility couples in whom varicocele in the man is the only abnormal finding. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsThere is no evidence that treatment of varicocele in men from couples with otherwise unexplained subfertility improves the couple's chance of conception.

Indexed as

Embolization, TherapeuticFemaleHumansInfertility, MaleMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVaricocele

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.