Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23076888›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Surgery or embolization for varicoceles in subfertile men.

Anja C J Kroese, Natascha M de Lange, John Collins, Johannes L H Evers

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
25.7field-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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 259 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Surgical or radiological treatment for varicoceles in subfertile men.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Varicocele.BMJ clinical evidence · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Recent Trends in the Management of Varicocele.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Are varicoceles the holy grail of Andrology?International journal of impotence research · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Varicocele: To Treat or Not to Treat?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Anja C J KroeseMaxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, Netherlands.
Natascha M de Lange
John Collins
Johannes L H Evers
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLMcMaster University · CARadboud University Nijmegen · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

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 a varicocele causes male subfertility has been around for more than 50 years now, the mechanisms by which a varicocele would affect fertility have not yet been satisfactorily explained. Neither is there sufficient evidence to explain 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 (a network of many small veins found in the human male spermatic cord) and impairment of fertility.

objectivesTo evaluate the effect of varicocele treatment on live birth and pregnancy rate in subfertile couples where the male has a varicocele. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (12 September 2003 to January 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2012), EMBASE (January 1985 to January 2012), PsycINFO (to Week 1 2012) and reference lists of articles. In addition, we handsearched specialist journals in the field from their first issue until 2012. We also checked cross-references, references from review articles and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they were relevant to the clinical question posed. If they reported pregnancy rates or live birth rates as an outcome measure, and if they reported data in treated (surgical ligation or radiological embolization of the internal spermatic vein) compared to untreated or placebo groups. Two authors independently screened potentially relevant trials. Any differences of opinion were resolved by consensus (none occurred for this review). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. For one study we had only data from a published abstract. All ten studies only included men from couples with subfertility problems; one excluded men with sperm counts less than 5 million per mL and one excluded men with sperm counts less than 2 million per mL, with or without progressive motility of less than 10%. Two trials involving clinical varicoceles included some men with normal semen analysis. Three studies specifically addressed only men with subclinical varicoceles. Studies were excluded from meta-analysis if they made comparisons other than those specified above. MAIN

resultsThe meta-analysis included 894 men. No studies reported live birth. The combined fixed-effect odds ratio (OR) of the 10 studies for the outcome of pregnancy was 1.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.05, very low quality evidence), favouring the intervention. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was 17, suggesting benefit of varicocele treatment over expectant management for pregnancy rate in subfertile couples in whom varicocele in the man was the only abnormal finding. Omission of the studies including men with normal semen analysis and subclinical varicocele, some of which had semen analysis improvement as the primary outcome rather than live birth or pregnancy rate, was the subject of a planned subgroup analysis. The outcome of the subgroup analysis (five studies) also favoured treatment, with a combined OR 2.39 (95% CI 1.56 to 3.66). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was 7. The evidence was suggestive rather than conclusive, as the main analysis was subject to fairly high statistical heterogeneity (I(2) = 67%) and findings were no longer significant when a random-effects model was used or when analysis was restricted to higher quality studies. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is evidence suggesting that treatment of a varicocele in men from couples with otherwise unexplained subfertility may improve a couple's chance of pregnancy. However, findings are inconclusive as the quality of the available evidence is very low and more research is needed with live birth or pregnancy rate as the primary outcome.

Indexed as

Embolization, TherapeuticFemaleHumansInfertility, MaleMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePregnancyPregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSperm CountVaricocele

Identifiers

PMID23076888
OpenAlexW3021774805

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.