ReviewEndocrine2025
Still counting sperm? Why novel, truly informative measurements of testis function in male infertility are urgently needed.
Review in Endocrine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Scoping Review of Male Fertility Assessment and Treatment Across Historical and Contemporary Paradigms.Andrology · 2026Article
- Integrating Sperm Microscopy, Environmental Exposures, and Lifestyle Factors for Male Fertility Analysis: Protocol for the Nippon Semen and Environmental Exposure Database (N-SEED) Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
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
Couple infertility is estimated to affect between 13% and 18% of all couples of reproductive age, with male factors accounting for at least 50% of cases. Semen analysis is the first-line investigation for all male partners of couples referred for fertility evaluation. However, semen analysis is far from being a good predictor of the ultimate outcome: pregnancy. For instance, in approximately 25% of infertility cases, conventional semen parameters are considered ‘normal’, leading to a diagnosis of so-called ‘unexplained infertility’. Nonetheless, this tool is central in the assessment of male fertility potential. This review first provides a historical perspective on the evaluation of male infertility based on semen analysis, illustrating the evolution of diagnostic approaches over time. The second section explores major changes in the interpretation of semen analysis and highlights the need for alternative methodologies. Finally, the last section examines critically the limitations and pitfalls of semen analysis in the diagnostic workup of male infertility and suggests exploring radical new approaches. The aim of this work is to raise awareness of the clinical limitations of conventional semen analysis and, consequently, to emphasize the urgency of identifying new strategies for diagnosing male infertility and optimizing treatment decisions both a priori and during potential interventions.
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.