Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38915912›Full record

ReviewReproductive medicine and biology

Sperm morphology: Evaluating its clinical relevance in contemporary fertility practice.

Daniel L Pelzman, Jay I Sandlow

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive medicine and biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. A Novel Homozygous Mutation inHuman mutation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

2 authors.

Daniel L PelzmanDepartment of Urology Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee Wisconsin USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1275-1461
Jay I SandlowDepartment of Urology Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee Wisconsin USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends reporting sperm morphology in a standard semen analysis. However, the clinical utility and prognostic value of morphology is often debated. Methods: We reviewed and summarized studies that assessed both the benefits and limitations of sperm morphology in the context of natural fertility, assisted reproductive technologies, and recurrent pregnancy loss. We additionally describe possible environmental and anatomical etiologies of teratozoospermia. Results: Sperm morphology evaluation has continuously evolved since the release of the first WHO manual in 1980. Initially, several large studies reported significant inverse associations between fertility outcomes and teratozoospermia. Most recent studies, however, fail to show an association between sperm morphology and natural or assisted fertility outcomes. Conclusion: Sperm morphology analysis may have limited diagnostic and prognostic value. Providers should be aware of these limitations when counseling or managing infertile patients.

Indexed as

andrologyassisted reproductive technologysperm physiology

Identifiers

PMID38915912
PMCPMC11194684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.