ReviewFaculty reviews2020
The evolution of testicular sperm extraction and preservation techniques.
Review in Faculty reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment with isotretinoin can improve de novo sperm production in nonobstructive azoospermia or cryptozoospermia.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Short-Term Hormonal Changes Following Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction among Men with Non-Obstructive Azoospermia: Findings from a Large Longitudinal Prospective Multicentric Study.The world journal of men's health · 2025Article
- Testicular tissue bank: ten years of testicular tissue cryopreservation in Croatia.Croatian medical journal · 2025Article
- Testicular sperm aspiration has a poor effect in predicting micro-TESE outcomes in NOA patients with AZFc deletion.Basic and clinical andrology · 2023Article
- Endocrine Follow-Up of Men with Non-Obstructive Azoospermia Following Testicular Sperm Extraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Revisiting non-obstructive azoospermia: Is there a best way to retrieve testicular sperm?Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
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
Along with the advent of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in 1992, sperm retrieval procedures now allow the possibility of conception from male sterility. In cases of sterility due to blockages in the reproductive tract, sperm retrieval procedures are relatively straightforward and reliable. In nonobstructive azoospermia or testis failure, sperm often can be difficult to retrieve. For this reason, the field of testicular sperm retrieval has witnessed tremendous change and innovation to achieve higher sperm yields, increasing efficiency and safety, along with fewer complications. We review the history and evolution of testicular sperm retrieval since its inception. Using the findings from randomized controlled trials, basic science studies, meta-analyses, case-controlled or cohort studies, best-practice policies, and literature reviews, we outline the concepts, facts, and principles that have been elucidated over several decades of experience with sperm retrieval. We also appraise the merits and issues of the most popular sperm retrieval techniques and strategies. Finally, we define areas of future clinical and laboratory development that will further refine the field of testicular sperm retrieval.
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.