ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2018
Limitations and opportunities in male fertility databases.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2018. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of satellite DNA-enriched heterochromatic variants in reproductive disorders: Insights from standardized cytogenetic analysis.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2026Article
- Male Infertility Knowledgebase: decoding the genetic and disease landscape.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2021Article
- Lower total motile count is associated with smaller historic intergenerational family size: a pedigree analysis from the Utah Population Database.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- A Bioinformatics Model of Human Diseases on the Basis of Differentially Expressed Genes (of Domestic Versus Wild Animals) That Are Orthologs of Human Genes Associated with Reproductive-Potential Changes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the last several years, the male component of reproduction has begun to gain clinical momentum. The medical literature has traditionally focused on infertility from the female perspective, but recent publications have demonstrated that male infertility is an important marker of overall health for infertile men as well as their family members. In order to perform large-scale, quality research related to male infertility, comprehensive databases are necessary. Currently, research in male infertility is limited by the fact that there is not a centralized, comprehensive database specifically designed to collect patient information related to male fertility. A database of this nature exists for female infertility research in the form of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) clinical summary report and the National ART Surveillance System (NASS) published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). This review outlines the strengths and weaknesses of several male fertility data sources, including the National Survey of Family Growth, the Reproductive Medicine Network, the Andrology Research Consortium (ARC), the Truven Health MarketScan
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.