ArticleBasic and clinical andrology2022
An evaluation of the population characteristics, semen quality, and utilization status of autologous sperm cryopreservation and fertility preservation in for 662 patients: a 6-year monocentric retrospective study.
Article in Basic and clinical andrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-used cryopreserved sperm among oncological patients: extra-long-term follow-up and analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSperm cryopreservation is an effective method of fertility preservation for disease-related and social sperm freezing. In total, 662 subjects (range: 15-65 years-of-age; mean: 33.49 ± 8.79 years-of-age) were included in this study to investigate the population characteristics, semen quality, and usage of autologous sperm preservation patients in Beijing. Of these, 351 were cancer patients (53.02%, 31.14 ± 7.32 years-of-age) and 311 were non-cancer patients (46.98%, 36.14 ± 9.54 years-of-age).
resultsWe found that the number of preservation cases increased steadily from 2015 to 2019; 89.73% of these had a bachelor's degree or above; 54.83%, 41.54%, and 3.63% were single, married, and divorced, respectively. The cases of cancers and oligozoospermia accounted for 71.30% of all patients; therefore, most patients required fertility preservation due to disease. The cancer group had a significantly lower sperm concentration, rate of progressive sperm after the frozen-thawed test, total progressive motility sperm count after the frozen-thawed test, and recovery rate of progressive motile sperm (RRPM) than the non-cancer group (all P < 0.05). Sperm count-related parameters were significantly affected by testicular cancer, while sperm motility-related parameters and RRPM were significantly affected by leukemia. The utilization rate of preserved sperm was 6.34% after 6 to 78 months of follow-up. In terms of fresh or frozen embryo transfer, the clinical pregnancy rate was 56.76% or 50.00%, and the live birth rate was 24.32% or 21.43%, respectively.
conclusionThe need for autologous sperm preservation was dominated by patients with diseases, followed by the need for social sperm freezing. Tumors had a major negative impact on semen quality, and the usage rates of stored semen were at lower level compared to the number of sperm cryopreservation. Medical staff and patients should pay attention to both cognition-action consistency and cost-effectiveness in fertility preservation.
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.