Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23147467›Full record

ReviewAsian journal of andrology2013

Microsurgical varicocelectomy: a review.

Akanksha Mehta, Marc Goldstein

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Asian journal of andrology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Outcomes following inguinal and subinguinal urologic procedures under deep intravenous sedation.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Varicocele: To Treat or Not to Treat?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

2 authors.

Akanksha MehtaDepartment of Urology and Center for Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10021, USA. akm9009@med.cornell.edu
Marc Goldstein

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Varicocelectomy is the most commonly performed surgical procedure for the treatment of male infertility. Although several different techniques for varicocele repair have been described in the literature, microsurgical varicocelectomy performed through a subinguinal or inguinal incision is recognized as the gold-standard approach for varicocelectomy, due to high success rates with minimal complications. Standard indications for varicocelectomy include palpable varicocele(s), with one or more abnormal semen parameters, and, for the couple trying to conceive, in the setting of normal or correctable female infertility. However, varicocele repair is often recommended and undertaken for reasons other than infertility, including low serum testosterone, testicular pain, testicular hypotrophy and poor sperm DNA quality. This article reviews the technical aspects of microsurgical varicocelectomy, and its indications in adults and adolescents.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultDNA FragmentationHumansInfertility, MaleMaleMicrosurgeryPainTestosteroneTreatment OutcomeVaricoceleTestosterone

Identifiers

PMID23147467
PMCPMC3739135

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.