Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38948338›Full record

ReviewReproductive medicine and biology

Role of varicocele repair in the era of assisted reproductive technologies: Lessons from 2000 cases of microsurgical varicocele repair.

Koji Shiraishi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

1 author.

Koji ShiraishiDepartment of Urology Yamaguchi University School of Medicine Ube Yamaguchi Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3278-7747

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Backgrounds: In an era of advanced maternal age, there is less conclusive evidence regarding the treatment outcomes of varicocele repair for assisted reproductive technology (ART). Progress in basic research on varicocele is notable whereas there are many clinically relevant points to discuss. Methods: Based on our experience with more than 2000 cases of microsurgical varicocele repair, we focused on the effectiveness of varicocele repair, pathophysiology, surgical approaches, contributions to ART, sperm DNA fragmentation, and varicocele-associated azoospermia in this review with the aim of identifying clearer directions for basic and clinical research on varicocele. Results: Microsurgical low ligation for varicocele repair is expected to remain the gold standard for surgical therapy. Based on the findings from a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, negative opinions regarding the efficacy of microsurgical varicocele repair in male infertility treatment have become virtually nonexistent. However, the majority of evidence regarding surgical indications and effectiveness pertains to improvements in semen parameters or non-ART pregnancy rates. Conclusions: Further understandings regarding to pathophysiology of varicocele will likely be gained through comprehensive genetic, transcriptomic, and epigenetic analyses using blood and testicular samples from humans and we hope to develop new diagnostic methods and pharmacotherapy.

Indexed as

assisted reproductive technologymale infertilityvaricocelevaricocele repair

Identifiers

PMID38948338
PMCPMC11211092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.