Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21170075›Full record

ArticleAsian journal of andrology2011

New WHO-reference limits-revolution or storm in a teapot?

Gerhard Haidl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Engaging practicing gynecologists in the management of infertile men.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2015
    Review
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

1 author.

Gerhard HaidlDepartment of Dermatology/Andrology Unit, University of Bonn, Bonn 53127, Germany. gerhard.haidl@ukb.uni-bonn.de

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since release of the latest WHO manual with the new lower reference values of semen parameters, a lot of discussion has been raised about their usefulness and appropriateness for assessment of male fertility. As with the previous reference values the new limits do neither allow an andrological diagnosis based on nosological criteria nor clear-cut differentiation between fertility and sub-/infertility. Therefore, considering the fact that fertility is a continuum, the new lower reference limits should not be overestimated. Most probably, more sperm function tests, such as determination of DNA integrity, and-in the future-assessment of biomarkers, such as sperm proteomics will be included into andrological work-up, thus resulting in a more personalized approach of infertility management. On the other hand, the detailed instructions for standard and advanced semen analysis provided in the new manual are very much appreciated and should be adopted by each seriously working laboratory.

Indexed as

HumansInfertility, MaleMaleManuals as TopicReference ValuesSemen AnalysisSperm MotilityWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID21170075
PMCPMC3739196

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.