Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21272869›Full record

ReviewFertility and sterility2011

The great debate: varicocele treatment and impact on fertility.

Matthew A Will, Jason Swain, Mikkel Fode, Jens Sonksen, Gregory M Christman, Dana Ohl

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Fertility and sterility, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
13.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 157 citations in OpenAlex.

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

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthew A WillDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Hospitals, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA. matwill@med.umich.edu
Jason Swain
Mikkel Fode
Jens Sonksen
Gregory M Christman
Dana Ohl
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USAarhus University · DKHerlev Hospital · DK

Funding

Cooperative Multicenter Reproductive Medicine Network (U10)U10HD055936 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI SMITH, YOLANDA R · 2007 to 2014
$2.1M
NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD055936
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the current literature on the impact and potential mechanisms of varicocele repair on male fertility.

designPertinent articles were identified through computer PubMed search on varicocele repair and male factor infertility. References of selected articles were hand searched for additional citations. CONCLUSION(S): Varicocele repair has been shown to reverse a spectrum of effects contributing to men with impaired fertility. Clinical studies on the intervention have illustrated variable effects on postoperative sperm parameters and pregnancy rates (PR). Studies with conflicting results suffer from a significant number of confounding variables such as variable repair technique or lack of controls. Additional studies are warranted on the role of modern microsurgical varicocelectomy given the improvements in assisted reproductive technologies (ART).

Indexed as

Pregnancy RateFemaleHumansInfertility, MaleMalePregnancyVaricocele

Identifiers

PMID21272869
PMCPMC3046876
OpenAlexW1996951353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.