Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31955275›Full record

ReviewHuman genetics2021

Monogenic causes of non-obstructive azoospermia: challenges, established knowledge, limitations and perspectives.

Laura Kasak, Maris Laan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Human genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed
18.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. A homozygousFrontiers in endocrinology · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Reproductive genetics and health.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2024
    Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laura KasakInstitute of Biomedicine and Translational Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4182-2396
Maris LaanInstitute of Biomedicine and Translational Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia. maris.laan@ut.ee.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8519-243X
University of Tartu · EE

Funding

Eesti Teadusagentuur IUT34-12
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is estimated that one in 100 men have azoospermia, the complete lack of sperm in the ejaculate. Currently, ~ 20% of azoospermia cases remain idiopathic. Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) is mostly explained by congenital factors leading to spermatogenic failure, such as chromosome abnormalities. The knowledge of the monogenic causes of NOA is very limited. High genetic heterogeneity due to the complexity of spermatogenesis and testicular function, lack of non-consanguineous familial cases and confirmatory studies challenge the field. The reported monogenic defects cause syndromic NOA phenotypes presenting also additional congenital problems and isolated NOA cases, explained by spermatogenic defects. The established and recently reported NOA genes (n = 38) represent essential guardians of meiosis, transcriptional and endocrine regulators of reproduction. Despite the list being short, 92% of these loci are predicted to functionally interact with each other (STRING analysis: average 5.21 connections/gene, enrichment P < 10

Indexed as

AnimalsAzoospermiaHumansMaleMeiosisPhenotypeSpermatogenesis

Identifiers

PMID31955275
OpenAlexW3000454340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.