Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33474845›Full record

ReviewThe world journal of men's health2021

Clinical Update on Home Testing for Male Fertility.

Daniel Gonzalez, Manish Narasimman, Jordan C Best, Jesse Ory, Ranjith Ramasamy

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The world journal of men's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel GonzalezDepartment of Urology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7913-3513
Manish NarasimmanDepartment of Urology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0903-0092
Jordan C BestDepartment of Urology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2364-6627
Jesse OryDepartment of Urology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9176-4334
Ranjith RamasamyDepartment of Urology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. Ramasamy@miami.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1387-7904
University of Miami · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Male factor infertility accounts for about 50% of the incidence of infertility in couples. In current practice, the men must attend a clinic or hospital facility to provide a semen analysis, which is key to the diagnosis of the male reproductive potential. However, many men are often embarrassed with the process and conventional semen analysis requires complex, labor intensive inspection with a microscope. To mitigate these problems, one of the solutions can be at-home semen analysis. In this review we examine the literature of currently available at home semen analysis test kits, describe their limitations, and compare them to the conventional lab-based methods.

Indexed as

Infertility, maleReproductive technologySemen analysisSperm count

Identifiers

PMID33474845
PMCPMC8443999
OpenAlexW3106223057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.