ReviewReproductive medicine and biology2014
Fertility preservation in men with cancer.
Review in Reproductive medicine and biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oncologists' current perspective and barriers to men's fertility preservation: a nationwide study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Protective effects of Withania somnifera against cyclophosphamide-induced testicular damage in rats.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2024Article
- Effect of Xymedon and Mexidol in Combination with Antineoplastic Drugs on Spermatogenesis Indicators and Functional State of Spermatozoa in Rats with Walker-256 Carcinoma.Bulletin of experimental biology and medicine · 2021Article
- Recovery of Spermatogenesis Following Cancer Treatment with Cytotoxic Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy.The world journal of men's health · 2019Review
- New Promising Strategies in Oncofertility.Expert review of quality of life in cancer care · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to recent advances in medical technologies, cancer has become more curable and chronic, and post-treatment quality of life, including male fertility, has become an important issue. Cancer itself can affect spermatogenesis through complex interactions, and cancer treatment such as surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, all have certain detrimental effects on spermatogenesis. Currently, sperm cryopreservation before cancer treatment is the mainstay of fertility preservation, and is recommended by numerous guidelines. Although fertility preservation should be discussed with all cancer patients before treatment, it still remains underused. Postpubertal patients who are unable to bank sperm may undergo testicular sperm extraction before treatment. For prepubertal boys, there is no clinically established guideline for fertility preservation. Investigations such as spermatogonial stem cell culture are ongoing, and may lead to clinical options for fertility preservation in the future.
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.