ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2017
A Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis on the clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing in specific male infertility scenarios.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationship Between Sperm DNA Fragmentation and Composite Morphological Indices: A Multivariable Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Should we routinely perform sperm DNA fragmentation testing in fertility clinics?Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- Sperm DNA Fragmentation in Male Infertility: Tests, Mechanisms, Meaning and Sperm Population to Be Tested.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Comprehensive Analysis of Global Research on Human Varicocele: A Scientometric Approach.The world journal of men's health · 2022Article
- Effect of Chronic Moderate Caloric Restriction on the Reproductive Function in Aged Male Wistar Rats.Nutrients · 2022Article
- Redox Balance in Male Infertility: Excellence through Moderation-"Μέτρον ἄριστον".Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Sperm DNA fragmentation testing: Summary evidence and clinical practice recommendations.Andrologia · 2021Review
- ALWAYS ICSI? A SWOT analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020Review
- Extended indications for sperm retrieval: summary of current literature.F1000Research · 2019Review
- Effect of varicocele repair on sperm DNA fragmentation: a review.International urology and nephrology · 2018Review
- Frontiers in clinical andrology.Translational andrology and urology · 2017Article
- Are specialized sperm function tests clinically useful in planning assisted reproductive technology?International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- From pathophysiology to practice: addressing oxidative stress and sperm DNA fragmentation in Varicocele-affected subfertile men.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is recognized as a leading cause of male infertility because it can impair the paternal genome through distinct pathophysiological mechanisms. Current evidence supports SDF as a major factor in the pathophysiology of several conditions, including varicocele, unexplained infertility, assisted reproductive technology failure, and environmental lifestyle factors, although the mechanisms involved have not been fully described yet. Measurement of the levels of DNA fragmentation in semen provides valuable information on the integrity of paternal chromatin and may guide therapeutic strategies. A recently published clinical practice guideline (CPG) highlighted how to use the information provided by SDF testing in daily practice, which triggered a series of commentaries by leading infertility experts. These commentaries contained an abundance of information and conflicting views about the clinical utility of SDF testing, which underline the complex nature of SDF.
methodsA search of papers published in response to the CPG entitled "Clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing: practice recommendations based on clinical scenarios" was performed within the
resultsFifty-eight fertility experts from six continents and twenty-two countries contributed commentaries. Overall, participants (87.9%; n=51) were supportive of the recommendations provided by the CPG on the utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios. The majority of participants made explicit remarks about both the clinical scenarios and SDF assays' characteristics. Among 'not supportive' and 'supportive with reservation' participants, 75% (n=30/40) and 77.5% (n=31/40) expressed concerns related to technical limitations of SDF testing methods and clinical utility of the test in one or more clinical scenarios discussed in the CPG, respectively. The SWOT analysis revealed that the CPG provides a reasonable evidence-based proposal for integration of SDF testing in the routine daily practice. It also uncovered gaps of knowledge and threats limiting the widespread application of SDF in everyday practice, thus allowing the identification of opportunities to further refine SDF testing and its clinical utility.
conclusionsThe understanding of the role of SDF in male infertility requires an in-depth analysis of the multifactorial pathophysiological processes and the theories involved. The SWOT analysis allowed an objective evaluation of CPG on the clinical utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios and its accompanying commentaries written by global experts in all possible angles. Implementation of SDF testing in the clinic may not only increase the outcome of ART but more importantly improve the health of both fathers to be and resulting offspring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.