ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2026
Comparing Methods for Sperm DNA Fragmentation Detection.
Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Sperm DNA fragmentation (sDF) detection has been proposed as an adjunct of routine semen analysis in the male infertility work up. Unfortunately, the gold standard test to reveal this parameter has not yet established and four different tests are available: (i) SCSA (Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay), detecting the resistance of sperm chromatin to denaturation; (ii) TUNEL (Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP Nick-End Labeling), labelling the 3'OH ends released by single and double DNA breaks; (iii) Alkaline COMET Assay, evidencing the single and double DNA fragments and SCD (Sperm Chromatin Dispersion) test, revealing the inability of DNA fragmented spermatozoa to form a halo around the nuclear core. These tests are different each from the other in many aspects, including the type of revealed damage and the clinical correlates. Another issue is the lack of standardised procedures that yields different values for sDF even using the same test. Protocols suggested by the last version of WHO guideline can be of help, but unfortunately cut-off values were not provided. In conclusion, although detection of sDF has been emerged as a novel clinical parameter, there are several issues still to be fixed in order to facilitate the use in the clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42036607What 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.