Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26238943›Full record

SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2015

A systematic review of recent clinical practice guidelines and best practice statements for the evaluation of the infertile male.

Sandro C Esteves, Peter Chan

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Seminal biomarkers and their correlations to semen parameters in subfertile men.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Impact of Moriamin Forte on Testicular and Epididymal Damage in Rats with Oligoasthenospermia.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Effect of varicocele repair on sperm DNA fragmentation: a review.International urology and nephrology · 2018
    Review
  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.

Sandro C EstevesANDROFERT, Andrology and Human Reproduction Clinic, Campinas, SP, 13075-460, Brazil, s.esteves@androfert.com.br.
Peter Chan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe systematically identified and reviewed the methods and consistency of recommendations of recently developed clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and best practice statements (BPS) on the evaluation of the infertile male.

methodsMEDLINE and related engines as well as guidelines' Web sites were searched for CPG and BPS written in English on the general evaluation of male infertility published between January 2008 and April 2015.

resultsFour guidelines were identified, all of which reported to have been recently updated. Systematic review was not consistently used in the BPS despite being reported in the CPG. Only one of them reported having a patient representative in its development team. The CPG issued by the European Association of Urology (EAU) graded some recommendations and related that to levels (but not quality) of evidence. Overall, the BPS issued respectively by the American Urological Association and American Society for Reproductive Medicine concurred with each other, but both differed from the EAU guidelines with regard to methods of collection, extraction and interpretation of data. None of the guidelines incorporated health economics. Important specific limitations of conventional semen analysis results were ignored by all guidelines. Besides variation in the methodological quality, implementation strategies were not reported in two out of four guidelines.

conclusionsWhile the various panels of experts who contributed to the development of the CPG and BPS reviewed should be commended on their tremendous efforts aiming to establish a clinical standard in both the evaluation and management of male infertility, we recognized inconsistencies in the methodology of their synthesis and in the contents of their final recommendations. These discrepancies pose a barrier in the general implementation of these guidelines and may limit their utility in standardizing clinical practice or improving health-related outcomes. Continuous efforts are needed to generate high-quality evidence to allow further development of these important guidelines for the evaluation and management of males suffering from infertility.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInfertility, MaleMaleSemen Analysis

Identifiers

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.