Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34278350›Full record

ArticleF&S reports2021

Optimal timing for repeat semen analysis during male infertility evaluation.

Nahid Punjani, Gal Wald, Omar Al-Hussein Alwamlh, Miriam Feliciano, Vanessa Dudley, Marc Goldstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nahid PunjaniCenter for Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Gal WaldWeill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Omar Al-Hussein AlwamlhCenter for Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Miriam FelicianoCenter for Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Vanessa DudleyCenter for Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Marc GoldsteinCenter for Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

optimal timingrepeat testingSemen analysis

Identifiers

PMID34278350
PMCPMC8267395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.