Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36674957›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2023

Sperm DNA Damage and Its Relevance in Fertility Treatment: A Review of Recent Literature and Current Practice Guidelines.

Jessica A Marinaro, Peter N Schlegel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Perspective in the Mechanisms for Repairing Sperm DNA Damage.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Jessica A MarinaroDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Peter N SchlegelDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 10065, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7129-8137

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage has recently emerged as one of the most controversial topics in male reproductive medicine. While level I evidence indicates that abnormal sperm DNA damage has substantial adverse effects on reproductive outcomes (including chance of pregnancy and risk of miscarriage), there is limited consensus on how sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) testing should be performed and/or interpreted in clinical practice. In this article, we review: (1) how SDF is assessed, (2) cumulative evidence regarding its impact on reproductive outcomes, (3) methods for mitigating high SDF, and (4) the most recent practice guidelines available for clinicians regarding the use and interpretation of SDF testing.

Indexed as

Infertility, MaleSemenDNA DamageDNA FragmentationFemaleFertilityHumansMalePregnancySpermatozoaassisted reproductive technologies (ART)infertilitysperm DNA fragmentation

Identifiers

PMID36674957
PMCPMC9860847

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.