ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016
[Social freezing - the male perspective].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- An evaluation of the population characteristics, semen quality, and utilization status of autologous sperm cryopreservation and fertility preservation in for 662 patients: a 6-year monocentric retrospective study.Basic and clinical andrology · 2022Article
- The Future of Cryopreservation in Assisted Reproductive Technologies.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Review
- The deteriorating soma and the indispensable germline: gamete senescence and offspring fitness.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Article
- [Androprotect and prospects for fertility treatment].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Germany there is an emerging trend for postponing parenthood due to non-medical, sociocultural reasons. This clearly impacts on the reproductive success due to an age-dependent decrease in fertility. Thus, strategies and techniques are currently discussed which could preserve the female fertility status, among which social freezing (cryopreservation of oocytes) for later fertilization is the most realistic one; however, while there is an intensive discussion on the procedure and timing of oocyte cryopreservation, virtually no attention has been paid to the male side and the aging effects on the male germ cells.
aimTo evaluate the risk paternal age poses for the integrity of germ cells.
methodsFor this review a literature search using PubMed, data from the Federal Statistical Office of Germany, the German in vitro fertilization (IVF) register as well as own data were used.
resultsSperm cell integrity is clearly affected by age both at the genetic as well as at the epigenetic levels. The estimated mutation rate for spermatozoa doubles every 16.5 years. Monogenic and multifactorial diseases are strongly associated with paternal age. Men aged >40 years have an increased risk of passing age-related mutations to their children.
conclusionsCryopreservation of spermatozoa is an option for men who postpone planning a family. Genetic counseling is recommended for couples undertaking social freezing and a male age of >40 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.