Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35185789›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2021

Systematic Review and Critical Analysis on Dietary Supplements for Male Infertility: From a Blend of Ingredients to a Rationale Strategy.

Andrea Garolla, Gabriel Cosmin Petre, Francesco Francini-Pesenti, Luca De Toni, Amerigo Vitagliano, Andrea Di Nisio, Giuseppe Grande, Carlo Foresta

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea GarollaUnit of Andrology and Reproductive Medicine & Centre for Male Gamete Cryopreservation, Department of Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Gabriel Cosmin PetreUnit of Andrology and Reproductive Medicine & Centre for Male Gamete Cryopreservation, Department of Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Francesco Francini-PesentiDepartment of Medicine, Clinical Nutrition Unit, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Luca De ToniUnit of Andrology and Reproductive Medicine & Centre for Male Gamete Cryopreservation, Department of Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Amerigo VitaglianoDepartment of Women and Children's Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Andrea Di NisioUnit of Andrology and Reproductive Medicine & Centre for Male Gamete Cryopreservation, Department of Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Giuseppe GrandeUnit of Andrology and Reproductive Medicine & Centre for Male Gamete Cryopreservation, Department of Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Carlo ForestaUnit of Andrology and Reproductive Medicine & Centre for Male Gamete Cryopreservation, Department of Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
University of Padua · ITOspedale Sant'Anna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Content: Dietary supplements (DS) for male infertility marketed in Italy were evaluated for composition, concentration of ingredients, and recommended daily dose. A systematic review of literature identified ingredients potentially effective on sperm parameters and their minimal effective daily dose (mED). Objective: This study was conducted in order to critically evaluate the composition and efficacy of DS marketed in Italy. Design Setting and Participants: This was a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Evidence Acquisition: A formula allowed us to classify the expected efficacy of each DS, based on composition. Each DS was scored and included into three classes of expected efficacy: high, low, and none. Evidence Synthesis: Among 24 supplements, 3 (12.5%) fall in high, 9 (37.5%) in lower, and 12 (50.0%) in no expected efficacy class. DS composition showed 36 substances, 18 with no literature on male fertility and 18 showing positive effect on sperm parameters, thus considered potentially active ingredients (PAI). All DS were mixtures of ingredients, containing from 2 to 17 different substances. Fifteen supplements (65.2%) contained at least 1 ingredient without evidence of efficacy and 21 formulations had PAI dosed below mED. Some PAI were associated to the improvement of specific sperm parameters. Conclusions: DS were usually blends of many substances that are frequently employed at negligible dose or without any evidence of efficacy on male reproduction. Some ingredients have been demonstrated to be effective on specific sperm parameters by RCTs. We report a list of ingredients with potential efficacy on specific sperm parameters, aimed to allow a tailored use of DS. Patient Summary: The market of DS for male infertility offers products with potential efficacy in the improvement of sperm parameters but also many with uncertain effects. Based on current scientific literature, our study can help in the choice of DS that are more likely to be effective on specific sperm alterations, so providing the best supplementation for each patient.

Indexed as

Infertility, MaleDietary SupplementsHumansItalyMaleSpermatozoafertilitymale reproductionnutraceuticalssemen parameterssupplements

Identifiers

PMID35185789
PMCPMC8854851
OpenAlexW4210367696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.