ArticleF&S reports2021
Optimal timing for repeat semen analysis during male infertility evaluation.
Article in F&S reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of instruments for measuring sex and gender attributes: assessment of measurement properties and utility in research on clinical and functional outcomes.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical Recommendations for the Management of Male Infertility: A Consensus from the Korean Society for Sexual Medicine and Andrology (KSSMA) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee.The world journal of men's health · 2026Review
- From Test Offer to Urologic Follow-up: Acceptability of Semen Analysis in Male Infertility and Preconception Care.Cureus · 2026Review
- The role of testicular stiffness derived from shear wave elastography in the assessment of spermatogenesis in men with varicocele.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- The Role of Circular RNAs in Male Infertility and Reproductive Cancers: A Narrative Review.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether the 4-week time period between semen analyses during the workup of male infertility is optimal and whether two samples are needed.
designRetrospective study.
settingTertiary hospital. PATIENTS: Men whose semen samples were obtained within 90 days of each other, without known fertility intervention, treatment, and/or azoospermia.
interventionsSemen analysis.
main outcome measuresCorrelation between semen parameters and agreement among consecutive semen analyses.
resultsA total of 2,150 semen samples from 1,075 men were included in the analysis. The optimal correlation for volume occurred at weeks 2, 8, and 12 (r = 0.803, r = 0.802, and r = 0.821, respectively). For concentration, the correlation was maximized at weeks 1, 4, and 5 (r = 0.950, r = 0.841, and r = 0.795, respectively). Total sperm count correlated at weeks 1, 2, and 4 (r = 0.929, r = 0.727, and r = 0.808, respectively). Motility was maximally correlated at weeks 1, 10, and 13 (r = 0.711, r = 0.760, and r = 0.708, respectively). Morphology was optimally correlated at weeks 1, 2, and 9 (r = 0.935, r = 0.815, and r = 0.839, respectively). Semen volume was correlated in 55% of men, sperm concentration in 64% of men, sperm motility in 52% of men and sperm morphology 64% of men.
conclusionsOur data suggest that four weeks may not be the optimal time for repeat semen analysis and that one sample is insufficient to assess any abnormalities in the result of semen analysis. The optimal time between repeat semen analyses should be individualized depending on the results of the initial analysis and additional factors, suggesting the need for future large-scale studies to investigate this trend.
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.