Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21076438›Full record

ReviewAsian journal of andrology2011

Measurement and significance of sperm morphology.

Roelof Menkveld, Cas A G Holleboom, Johann P T Rhemrev

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Asian journal of andrology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Roelof MenkveldAndrology Laboratory, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Tygerberg Academic Hospital and University of Stellenbosch, Tygerberg 7505, South Africa. rme@sun.ac.za
Cas A G Holleboom
Johann P T Rhemrev

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The measurement or evaluation and clinical significance of human sperm morphology has always been and still is a controversial aspect of the semen analysis for the determination of a male's fertility potential. In this review the background of the development of the evaluation criteria for sperm morphology will be discussed. Aspects of criticism on the strict criteria definition and use of the criteria for sperm morphology evaluation will be discussed as well as possible reasons for the decline in normal sperm morphology values and how we can compromise for this phenomenon resulting in the very low normal reference value as published in the 2010 WHO manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. One of the possible solutions may be to give more attention to a limited number of abnormal sperm morphology categories and the inclusion of sperm morphology patterns. It is concluded in this review that if done correctly and with care and with strict application of existing guidelines as outlined in the 2010 WHO manual, sperm morphology measurement still has a very important role to play in the clinical evaluation of male fertility potential.

Indexed as

Cell ShapeHumansInfertility, MaleMaleSemen AnalysisSpermatozoa

Identifiers

PMID21076438
PMCPMC3739393

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.