Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28904907›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2017

Microdissection testicular sperm extraction.

Ryan Flannigan, Phil V Bach, Peter N Schlegel

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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.

NCT06524258 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Testicular Elastography for Predicting the Likelihood of Sperm Retrieval in Microscopic Testicular Sperm Extraction

TypeinterventionalSponsorUşak UniversityRan2020 to 2021Enrolled84ConditionsAzoospermia, Elasticity Imaging Techniques, Fertility PreservationArmstesticular elastography
NCT06702397 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Preliminary Results of Microsurgical Testicular Exploration for Sperm Retrieval in Azoospermic Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Operating Microscope vs. Surgical Loupes

TypeinterventionalSponsorA.O.U. Città della Salute e della ScienzaRan2022 to 2024Enrolled42ConditionsAzoospermia, NonobstructiveArmsMicroscope, Surgical loupes
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Fresh versus frozen micro-TESE sperm and outcomes.Asian journal of andrology · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

Ryan FlanniganWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Phil V BachWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Peter N SchlegelWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microdissection testicular sperm extraction (microTESE) is considered the gold standard method for surgical sperm retrieval among patients with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA). In this review, we will discuss the optimal evaluation of NOA patients and strategies to medically optimize NOA patients prior to microTESE. In addition, we will also discuss technical principles and pearls to maximize the chances of successful sperm retrieval, sperm retrieval rates (SRR) based upon testicular histology, predictors of successful sperm retrieval, gonadal recovery following microTESE, and potential complications.

Indexed as

male infertilitymicrodissection testicular sperm extraction (microTESE)Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA)surgical sperm retrievaltesticular sperm extraction (TESE)

Identifiers

PMID28904907
PMCPMC5583061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.