ReviewAsian journal of andrology2024
Predictive parameters of the efficacy of varicocele repair: a review.
Review in Asian journal of andrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of the mitochondrial injury-mediated oxidative stress-sterile inflammation axis in varicocele-induced infertility: a narrative review.Basic and clinical andrology · 2026Review
- Predictive parameters of semen outcome improvement after varicocele treatment by scleroembolization: a retrospective study.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the efficacy of subinguinal antegrade sclerotherapy and subinguinal micro varicocelectomy versus a combined approach on the semen parameters in infertile patients: a randomized prospective comparative study.Basic and clinical andrology · 2026Article
- Testicular microenvironment disruption in varicocele: mechanisms and implications for spermatogenesis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Astragaloside IV attenuates ferroptosis-related testicular injury in rats with experimental varicocele.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Breaking barriers in male infertility: the power of artificial intelligence-driven solutions.Frontiers in urology · 2026Review
- Recent Trends in the Management of Varicocele.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Andrological Landscape in the Twenty-First Century: Making Sense of the Advances in Male Infertility Management for the Busy Clinicians.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractVaricocele has a prevalence of 15% in the population and represents a primary cause of infertility in 40% of cases and a secondary cause in approximately 80% of cases. It is considered the major correctable cause of male infertility. Despite its high prevalence in the infertile population, a large number of patients with varicocele do not experience reproductive difficulties. For this reason, it is still highly debated which parameters could be used to predict which patients with varicocele will be most likely to benefit from its repair. The main international and European guidelines state that treatment should only be considered in infertile patients with abnormal sperm quality. However, these guidelines do not help physicians to identify which of these patients may benefit from the treatment. Therefore, this narrative review collects the evidence in the literature on the usefulness of some factors as predictors of improvement, highlighting how some of them may be effective in an initial selection of patients to be treated, while others are promising but further studies are needed. Finally, a brief consideration on the possible role of artificial intelligence is proposed.
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.