Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36108728›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2023

Effect of semen collection location on semen parameters and fertility outcomes and implications for practice in the COVID-19 era: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies.

Pakapong Kerdtawee, Lingling Salang, Jen Sothornwit

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pakapong KerdtaweeFaculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Lingling SalangFaculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. Electronic address: Slingling@kku.ac.th.
Jen SothornwitFaculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Khon Kaen University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDuring the COVID-19 era, semen collection at infertility centers might increase the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2. Seminal fluid collection at home is an alternative method for preventing this spread. However, there is no conclusion about the effect of home vs clinic semen collection on semen parameters and assisted reproductive technology outcomes. This systematic review and metaanalysis aimed to assess the effect of semen collection location on semen parameters and fertility outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted using the major electronic databases including MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, OpenGrey, and CENTRAL from their inception to September 2021. CLINICALTRIALS: gov was searched to identify the ongoing registered clinical trials. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all human randomized controlled trials and observational studies that investigated the effect of at-home semen collection vs in-clinic semen collection on semen parameters and fertility outcomes.

methodsWe pooled the mean difference and risk ratio using Review Manager software version 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2022). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was applied to assess the quality of evidence.

resultsSeven studies (3018 semen samples) were included. Overall, at-home semen collection results made little to no difference in semen volume (mean difference, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, -0.10 to 0.85; low-quality evidence), sperm count (mean difference, -6.02; 95% confidence interval, -27.26 to 15.22; very low-quality evidence), and sperm motility (mean difference, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, -4.39 to 5.92; very low-quality evidence) compared with in-clinic semen collection. There was no difference in fertilization rate (risk ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.03; very low-quality evidence) and pregnancy rate in in vitro fertilization (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.25; very low-quality evidence).

conclusionAt-home semen collection had no adverse effects on semen parameters or fertility outcomes compared with in-clinic collection. However, higher-quality evidence is needed.

Indexed as

COVID-19SemenFemaleFertilityHumansMalePregnancyPregnancy RateSARS-CoV-2Sperm Motilitycollection locationfertility outcomessemen analysissemen parameters

Identifiers

PMID36108728
PMCPMC9467919
OpenAlexW4295537275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.