Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21655766›Full record

ReviewClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2011

An update on the clinical assessment of the infertile male. [corrected].

Sandro C Esteves, Ricardo Miyaoka, Ashok Agarwal

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 125 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
125citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
16.2field-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

125 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 311 citations in OpenAlex.

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

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sandro C EstevesAndrology & Human Reproduction Clinic, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. s.esteves@androfert.com.br
Ricardo Miyaoka
Ashok Agarwal
Cleveland Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Male infertility is directly or indirectly responsible for 60% of cases involving reproductive-age couples with fertility-related issues. Nevertheless, the evaluation of male infertility is often underestimated or postponed. A coordinated evaluation of the infertile male using standardized procedures improves both diagnostic precision and the results of subsequent management in terms of effectiveness, risk and costs. Recent advances in assisted reproductive techniques (ART) have made it possible to identify and overcome previously untreatable causes of male infertility. To properly utilize the available techniques and improve clinical results, it is of the utmost importance that patients are adequately diagnosed and evaluated. Ideally, this initial assessment should also be affordable and accessible. We describe the main aspects of male infertility evaluation in a practical manner to provide information on the judicious use of available diagnostic tools and to better determine the etiology of the most adequate treatment for the existing condition.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAzoospermiaChromosome AberrationsHumansInfertility, MaleMaleSemen AnalysisSpermatogenesisSpermatozoa

Identifiers

PMID21655766
PMCPMC3093801
OpenAlexW2077363486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.