Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27325404›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016

[Androprotect and prospects for fertility treatment].

S Kliesch

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. [Andrology in oncological diseases].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2018
    Review
  3. Review
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

1 author.

S KlieschAbteilung für Klinische Andrologie, Centrum für Reproduktionsmedizin und Andrologie, WHO Kooperationszentrum zur Erforschung der männlichen Reproduktion, EAA Ausbildungszentrum, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Geb. D11, 48149, Münster, Deutschland. Sabine.Kliesch@ukmuenster.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFertility protection is essential for men undergoing potentially gonadotoxic treatment. It is usually offered to adolescents and men in reproductive age by semen cryopreservation. In case of azoospermia, testicular sperm cryopreservation is an additional option. In prepubertal boys no sperm cryopreservation is possible. A purely experimental option is cryopreservation of spermatogonial stem cells in immature testis tissue.

methodTransplantation of either immature testis tissue or testicular stem cells or spermatogonia generated in vitro from stem cells are possible options for fertility preservation in boys.

objectivesIn this article, the rationale for cryopreservation of gonadal stem cells and the experimental methods for refertilization are summarized. The current research, national and international clinical and research activities and possible perspectives of further development of fertility preservation are explained.

Indexed as

CryopreservationEvidence-Based MedicineFertility PreservationHumansInfertility, MaleMaleSemen PreservationStem Cell TransplantationTreatment OutcomeCryopreservationImmature testis tissueSpermatogenesisSpermatogonial progenitor cellsStem cell transplantation

Identifiers

PMID27325404

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.