ArticleTurkish journal of urology2021
Assisted reproductive treatments with hyperbaric oxygen therapy in male infertility.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for male infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis on improving sperm quality and fertility outcomes.Medical gas research · 2025Pooled it
- Globozoospermia: A Case Report and Systematic Review of Literature.The world journal of men's health · 2023Article
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 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to analyze the results of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in addition to assisted reproductive technologies in male infertility cases. MATERIAL AND
methodsMedical records of male infertility patients who had HBOT sessions for any reason between January 1, 2015-December 31, 2019, were analyzed retrospectively.
resultsA total of 15 male patients were included. Patients were classified as group 1 [DNA fragmentation (n=5)], group 2 [globozoospermia (n=5)], and group 3 [azoospermia (n=5)]. Round spermatid injection (ROSI), intrauterine insemination (IUI), or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedures were performed in 10 of the 15 patients. A total of 31 embryos were obtained out of which 19 (61%) were transferred. While a total of 15 embryos were obtained in the globozoospermic group, which was the highest number, 10 were obtained from the azoospermic patients, and 6 from the DNA fragmentation patients (p=0.515). A total of 3 (30%) healthy pregnancies were obtained, overall. The mean sperm count of the patients (n=9) before HBOT was 8.4±11.1 mil/mL, while it was found to be 15.7±15.0 mil/mL after HBOT (azoospermic patients were not included). The TESE results were analyzed for azoospermic patients; positive changes were observed in 4 patients (80%). On the other hand, there was an improvement in 50% of group 1 according to sperm DNA fragmentation after HBOT (p=0.500).
conclusionWhile a total of 15 embryos were obtained in the globozoospermic group, which was the highest number, 10 were obtained from the azoospermic patients.. Further studies should be conducted on HBOT and male infertility.
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.