ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2018
A retrospective study on sperm banking: a Uruguayan experience.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the status of homologous sperm banking in Uruguay.
methodsA retrospective investigation was performed on data collected between 2013 and 2015. Reasons for sperm banking, patient age, pre-freeze and post-thaw semen parameters, and recovery rates were analyzed.
results623 samples were cryobanked between 2013 and 2015. Only 324 samples were considered for analysis after selection based on inclusion criteria. In most cases the samples were stored because the patients were undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment (n=190; 58,64%) or for oncological reasons (n=113; 34,88%). The median age of bankers was 34 years. In the cancer group, 61.95% (n=70) of the subjects had been diagnosed with testicular cancer. Medians of semen parameters for both groups were above the lower reference limits dictated by the . In fresh samples, a significant difference was observed in progressive motility (47% vs. 56%) between ART and oncological patients. After thawing, total motility (27% vs. 32%), progressive motility (19% vs. 22%), and vitality (48% vs. 56%) differed significantly between ART and oncological bankers.
conclusionSemen banking has been performed successfully in Uruguay and outcomes are on par with international standards. Surprisingly, the semen parameters of the cancer group were nearly normal.
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.