SynthesisHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2019
A systematic review and standardized clinical validity assessment of male infertility genes.
Synthesis in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
106 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 202 citations in OpenAlex.
- The genetic insights of sporadic male infertility: a systematic review of WES and WGS studies (2014-2024).Human genomics · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review and standardized clinical validity assessment of genes involved in female reproductive failure.Reproduction (Cambridge, England) · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review of the validated monogenic causes of human male infertility: 2020 update and a discussion of emerging gene-disease relationships.Human reproduction update · 2021Pooled it
- The association between mutations in ubiquitin-specific protease 26 (Asian journal of andrologyPooled it
- Pathogenicity assessment of genetic variants in reproductive disorders.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- A recurrent North African ZP1 variant and a literature review of genotype-phenotype correlations in ZP-related infertility.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Current gene panels for female infertility: gaps between evidence and clinical application.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- A clinical protocol for the detection of comorbidities associated with monogenic causes of male infertility.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Genetic alterations in poor-quality individually selected sperm highlight candidate biomarkers for male subfertility.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Genome-wide copy-number analysis improves detection of pathogenic AZFc and autosomal variants in idiopathic non-obstructive azoospermia.Molecular cytogenetics · 2026Article
- Disruption of meiotic double-strand break dynamics provokes germline human infertility in both sexes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- A common cause of non-obstructive azoospermia: biallelic MEI1 variants and implications for infertility diagnostics.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Genetic diversity of infertile males in India.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Article
- The Role of Whole Exome Sequencing in the Genetic Evaluation of the Infertile Man.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- The intricate dance of RNA-binding proteins: unveiling the mechanisms behind male infertility.Human reproduction update · 2026Review
- Genetic and epigenetic insights into non-obstructive azoospermia: mechanisms, biomarkers, and clinical perspectives.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Review
- Identification of missense DMC1 variants in males with non-obstructive azoospermia.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Novel biallelic HFM1 variants cause severe oligozoospermia with favorable intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome.Asian journal of andrology · 2025Article
- Genome Editing for Fertility: Unlocking the Promise of CRISPR/Cas9 in Addressing Male Infertility - A Narrative Review.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025Review
46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
study questionWhich genes are confidently linked to human monogenic male infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our systematic literature search and clinical validity assessment reveals that a total of 78 genes are currently confidently linked to 92 human male infertility phenotypes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The discovery of novel male infertility genes is rapidly accelerating with the availability of next-generating sequencing methods, but the quality of evidence for gene-disease relationships varies greatly. In order to improve genetic research, diagnostics and counseling, there is a need for an evidence-based overview of the currently known genes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a systematic literature search and evidence assessment for all publications in Pubmed until December 2018 covering genetic causes of male infertility and/or defective male genitourinary development. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsTwo independent reviewers conducted the literature search and included papers on the monogenic causes of human male infertility and excluded papers on genetic association or risk factors, karyotype anomalies and/or copy number variations affecting multiple genes. Next, the quality and the extent of all evidence supporting selected genes was weighed by a standardized scoring method and used to determine the clinical validity of each gene-disease relationship as expressed by the following six categories: no evidence, limited, moderate, strong, definitive or unable to classify. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: From a total of 23 526 records, we included 1337 publications about monogenic causes of male infertility leading to a list of 521 gene-disease relationships. The clinical validity of these gene-disease relationships varied widely and ranged from definitive (n = 38) to strong (n = 22), moderate (n = 32), limited (n = 93) or no evidence (n = 160). A total of 176 gene-disease relationships could not be classified because our scoring method was not suitable. LARGE SCALE DATA: Not applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our literature search was limited to Pubmed. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsThe comprehensive overview will aid researchers and clinicians in the field to establish gene lists for diagnostic screening using validated gene-disease criteria and help to identify gaps in our knowledge of male infertility. For future studies, the authors discuss the relevant and important international guidelines regarding research related to gene discovery and provide specific recommendations for the field of male infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by a VICI grant from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (918-15-667 to J.A.V.), the Royal Society, and Wolfson Foundation (WM160091 to J.A.V.) as well as an investigator award in science from the Wellcome Trust (209451 to J.A.V.). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: None.
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.