ReviewFertility and sterility2022
What advances may the future bring to the diagnosis, treatment, and care of male sexual and reproductive health?
Review in Fertility and sterility, 2022. 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- A framework for evaluating predicted sperm trajectories in crowded microscopy videos.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- High rate of isolated teratospermia in a population of fertile men and the questionable clinical utility of sperm morphology.F&S reports · 2024Article
- Male infertility.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
- Investigation of the Effect of Seminal Plasma Exosomes from the Normal and Oligoasthenoteratospermic Males in the Implantation Process.Reports of biochemistry & molecular biology · 2023Article
- Mitochondrial metabolism determines the functional status of human sperm and correlates with semen parameters.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Article
- Reassessing Semen Analysis: Clinical Insights Beyond Sperm Count and Motility.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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past 40 years, since the publication of the original WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen, the laboratory methods used to evaluate semen markedly changed and benefited from improved precision and accuracy, as well as the development of new tests and improved, standardized methodologies. Herein, we present the impact of the changes put forth in the sixth edition together with our views of evolving technologies that may change the methods used for the routine semen analysis, up-and-coming areas for the development of new procedures, and diagnostic approaches that will help to extend the often-descriptive interpretations of several commonly performed semen tests that promise to provide etiologies for the abnormal semen parameters observed. As we look toward the publication of the seventh edition of the manual in approximately 10 years, we describe potential advances that could markedly impact the field of andrology in the future.
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.