MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this case-control study, sixty-five infertile patients with idiopathic OA and forty fertile men (control) were included. All participants underwent semen analysis based on the World Health Organization guidelines (5th edition, 2010). Patients received CoQ10 at the dose of 200 mg/d orally for three months. Seminal plasma CoQ10, total antioxidant capacity (TAC), total reactive oxygen species (ROS), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and SDF levels were measured in controls (baseline) and infertile patients pre- and post-CoQ10 treatment.
RESULTS: CoQ10 treatment for three months significantly improved sperm concentration (p<0.05), progressive motility (p<0.05), total motility (p<0.01), seminal fluid CoQ10 concentration (p<0.001), TAC (p<0.001), and GPx (p<0.001) levels in infertile men with OA. Further, ROS level (p<0.05) and SDF percentage (p<0.001) were reduced in OA patients as compared to the baseline. CoQ10 levels also correlated positively with sperm concentration (r=0.48, p=0.01) and total motility (r=0.59, p=0.003) while a negative correlation was recorded between SDF and sperm motility (r=-0.54, p=0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: CoQ10 supplementation for three months could improve semen parameters, oxidative stress markers and reduce SDF in infertile men with idiopathic OA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an online survey, this study aimed to evaluate the practice pattern of reproductive specialists to determine the clinical utility of oxidative stress (OS) testing and antioxidant prescriptions to treat male infertility.
RESULTS: Responses from 1,327 participants representing 6 continents, showed the largest participant representation being from Asia (46.8%). The majority of participants were attending physicians (59.6%), with 61.3% having more than 10 years of experience in the field of male infertility. Approximately two-thirds of clinicians (65.7%) participated in this survey did not order any diagnostic tests for OS. Sperm DNA fragmentation was the most common infertility test beyond a semen analysis that was prescribed to study oxidative stress-related dysfunctions (53.4%). OS was mainly tested in the presence of lifestyle risk factors (24.6%) or sperm abnormalities (16.3%). Interestingly, antioxidants were prescribed by 85.6% of clinicians, for a duration of 3 (43.7%) or 3-6 months (38.6%). A large variety of antioxidants and dietary supplements were prescribed, and scientific evidence were mostly considered to be modest to support their clinical use. Results were not influenced by the physician's age, geographic origin, experience or training in male infertility.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest online survey performed to date on this topic and demonstrates 1) a worldwide understanding of the importance of this therapeutic option, and 2) a widely prevalent use of antioxidants to treat male infertility. Finally, the necessity of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines from professional societies is highlighted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Scopus database was used to retrieve related articles and the top 100 identified based on citation rate.
RESULTS: The articles were published in 56 journals between 1995 and 2019 with a median (interquartile range) citation score of 17 (5-62). Among the top 100 articles, 69 were clinical studies, which included controlled and blinded (33.33%), prospective (27.54%), randomized-controlled trials (26.09%), uncontrolled (11.59%), and retrospective (1.45%) studies. In addition to conventional semen parameters, advanced sperm function tests such as oxidative stress (51%) and sperm DNA damage (23%) were reported. Pregnancy rate (33%) was found to be the most reported reproductive outcome. Antioxidant therapy was mostly investigated in male cohorts with sperm abnormalities such as asthenozoospermia (28%) and clinical conditions such as idiopathic male infertility (20%), varicocele/varicocelectomy (17%) and general male infertility (16%).
CONCLUSIONS: The most influential publications on antioxidants and male infertility were identified for the first time in the literature. This will serve as a reliable source of information for researchers and clinicians alike.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Varicocele studies published between 1988 and 2020 were retrieved from the Scopus database on April 5, 2021. Original studies on human varicocele were included, irrespective of language. Retrieved articles were manually screened for inclusion in various sub-categories. Bibliometric data was subjected to scientometric analysis using descriptive statistics. Network, heat and geographic mapping were generated using relevant software.
RESULTS: In total, 1,943 original human studies on varicocele were published. These were predominantly from the northern hemisphere and developed countries, and published in journals from the United States and Germany. Network map analysis for countries showed several interconnected nodal points, with the USA being the largest, and Agarwal A. from Cleveland Clinic, USA, being a center point of worldwide varicocele research collaborations. Studies of adolescents were underrepresented compared with studies of adults. Studies on diagnostic and prognostic aspects of varicocele were more numerous than studies on varicocele prevalence, mechanistic studies and studies focusing on etiological and risk factors. Varicocele surgery was more investigated than non-surgical approaches. To evaluate the impact of varicocele and its treatment, researchers mainly analyzed basic semen parameters, although markers of seminal oxidative stress are being increasingly investigated in the last decade, while reproductive outcomes such as live birth rate were under-reported in the literature.
CONCLUSIONS: This study analyzes the publication trends in original research on human varicocele spanning over the last three decades. Our analysis emphasizes areas for further exploration to better understand varicocele's impact on men's health and male fertility.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included and the meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS: We assessed for eligibility 1,307 abstracts, and 45 RCTs were finally included, for a total of 4,332 infertile patients. We found a significantly higher pregnancy rate in patients treated with AOX compared to placebo-treated or untreated controls, without significant inter-study heterogeneity. No effects on live-birth or miscarriage rates were observed in four studies. A significantly higher sperm concentration, sperm progressive motility, sperm total motility, and normal sperm morphology was found in patients compared to controls. We found no effect on SDF in analysis of three eligible studies. Seminal levels of total antioxidant capacity were significantly higher, while seminal malondialdehyde acid was significantly lower in patients than controls. These results did not change after exclusion of studies performed following varicocele repair.
CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis upgrades the level of evidence favoring a recommendation for using AOX in male infertility to improve the spontaneous pregnancy rate and the conventional sperm parameters. The failure to demonstrate an increase in live-birth rate, despite an increase in pregnancy rates, is due to the very few RCTs specifically assessing the impact of AOX on live-birth rate. Therefore, further RCTs assessing the impact of AOX on live-birth rate and miscarriage rate, and SDF will be helpful.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Researchers were trained for use of Scopus, study eligibility, assessment of the quality of evidence (QoE) through the Cambridge Quality Checklist for observational studies, as well as the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines, and the Jadad score for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) questions and data extraction. A total of 35 of them were approved to join a planned SRMA. At the end of the SRMA, they were administered 43 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on demographics, motivation for participation in the SRMA, self-perceived change in knowledge before and after conducting the SRMA, and self-assessment of performance. The senior researchers then revised the spreadsheet of the SRMA and, based on the mistakes found, organized a training focused on the correct assessment of the study design, where 43 researchers (9 joined midway) and 11 trainees with no experience in conducting SRMA attended. They all were tested through a 5 MCQ assessment that was administered before and after the training. Those scoring poorly were re-trained and re-tested, and only those scoring satisfactorily were admitted to further SRMAs.
RESULTS: Approximately 54.3% of the participants were medical doctors (MD), 31.4% were urologists and 48.6% had previous experience with SRMAs. Joining an international collaborative study was the main motivation, chosen by 19.7% of researchers. The results of the self-perceived change in knowledge showed a significant improvement in the use of Scopus, checklists for QoE, PICO questions, data required to perform a meta-analysis, and critical reading of scientific articles. Also, the majority of the researchers ranked the quality of their work as high. The pre-test results of the 5 MCQ showed a low score, which was not different from that achieved by a group of fresh trainees (median, 2; IQR 1-3 vs. median, 1; IQR, 1-2; p=0.3). Post-training there was significant improvement in both groups (researchers: median, 4; IQR, 3-5 vs. median, 2; IQR, 1-3; p<0.001; trainees: median, 4; IQR, 3-4 vs. median, 1; IQR, 1-2; p=0.02). Out of the 44 researchers, 12 (27.3%) scored poorly (≤3). After re-training, all of them scored satisfactorily (>3) and were admitted to subsequent SRMAs.
CONCLUSIONS: At the end of our model, 100% of researchers participating in this study were validated to be included in a meta-analysis. This validation required the involvement of the MT, two meetings, a self-evaluation survey, and one or two sets of objective tests with explanations and corrections. Our results indicate that even well-trained clinicians are naïve when it comes to the methodology of SRMA. All the researchers performing an SRMA need comprehensive training that must cover each aspect of the SRMA methodology. This paper provides a replicable training program that could be used by other investigators to train the researchers to perform high-quality SRMAs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICOS) model (Population: infertile patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: VR [any technique]; Comparison: infertile patients with clinical varicocele that were untreated; Outcome: sperm concentration, sperm total count, progressive sperm motility, total sperm motility, sperm morphology, and semen volume; Study type: randomized controlled trials and observational studies).
RESULTS: A total of 1,632 abstracts were initially assessed for eligibility. Sixteen studies were finally included with a total of 2,420 infertile men with clinical varicocele (1,424 patients treated with VR vs. 996 untreated controls). The analysis showed significantly improved post-operative semen parameters in patients compared to controls with regards to sperm concentration (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.739; 95% CI 1.129 to 2.349; p<0.001; I²=97.6%), total sperm count (SMD 1.894; 95% CI 0.566 to 3.222; p<0.05; I²=97.8%), progressive sperm motility (SMD 3.301; 95% CI 2.164 to 4.437; p<0.01; I²=98.5%), total sperm motility (SMD 0.887; 95% CI 0.036 to 1.738; p=0.04; I²=97.3%) and normal sperm morphology (SMD 1.673; 95% CI 0.876 to 2.470; p<0.05; I²=98.5%). All the outcomes showed a high inter-study heterogeneity, but the sensitivity analysis showed that no study was sensitive enough to change these results. Publication bias was present only in the analysis of the sperm concentration and progressive motility. No significant difference was found for the semen volume (SMD 0.313; 95% CI -0.242 to 0.868; I²=89.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a high level of evidence in favor of a positive effect of VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men with clinical varicocele. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SRMA to compare changes in conventional semen parameters after VR with changes in parameters of a control group over the same period. This is in contrast to other SRMAs which have compared semen parameters before and after VR, without reference to a control group. Our findings strengthen the available evidence and have a potential to upgrade professional societies' practice recommendations favoring VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: These modules included manual semen analysis, sperm morphology and ancillary semen tests (testing for leukocytospermia, sperm vitality, and anti-sperm antibody screening). The virtual format consisted of lecture presentations featuring laboratory protocols with corresponding video demonstrations of routine techniques and best practices. Practical scenarios, troubleshooting, and clinical interpretation of laboratory results were also discussed. At the end of each module, an optional multiple choice question test was held as a prerequisite to obtain certification on the topics presented. Course quality was assessed using participant responses collected via online surveys.
RESULTS: The digital delivery methods used were found to have largely or completely met the participants' expectations for all questions (>85%). The majority (>87%) of the participants either strongly agreed or agreed that the course content was well-structured with appropriate depth, and that their overall expectations of the course had been met.
CONCLUSIONS: This training format appears to be a realistic teaching option to freely share highly specialized expertise and technical knowledge with participants from anywhere in the world with varying levels of competency or experience.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to take part in a global online survey on SDF clinical practices. This was conducted following the CHERRIES checklist criteria. The responses were compared to professional society guideline recommendations related to SDF and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations on indications for SDF testing were then formulated, and the Delphi method was used to reach consensus.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 experts from 55 countries. Almost 75% of respondents test for SDF in all or some men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, 39% order it routinely in the work-up of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), and 62.2% investigate SDF in smokers. While 47% of reproductive urologists test SDF to support the decision for varicocele repair surgery when conventional semen parameters are normal, significantly fewer general urologists (23%; p=0.008) do the same. Nearly 70% would assess SDF before assisted reproductive technologies (ART), either always or for certain conditions. Recurrent ART failure is a common indication for SDF testing. Very few society recommendations were found regarding SDF testing.
CONCLUSIONS: This article presents the largest global survey on the indications for SDF testing in infertile men, and demonstrates diverse practices. Furthermore, it highlights the paucity of professional society guideline recommendations. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.