ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2026
Evaluating Sperm DNA Damage: When and Why It Does Not Add to the Evaluation of Male Factor Infertility.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Male infertility accounts for nearly half of all infertility cases, yet standard semen analysis often fails to reflect sperm's functional competence or fertilization potential. Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) has emerged as a potential biomarker of sperm quality, with elevated levels frequently associated with reduced fertilization rates, lower IVF/ICSI success, and an increased risk of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). Meta-analyses suggest an inverse relationship between SDF and both clinical pregnancy and live birth rates, particularly in IVF/ICSI cycles; however, assay variability limits the interpretability of SDF testing. Varicocele has been implicated as a contributor to elevated SDF, with several studies indicating an association. However, causality and clinical implications remain under investigation. While varicocelectomy may reduce SDF, its effect on reproductive outcomes remains uncertain. Adjunctive strategies, such as antioxidant therapy, microfluidic sperm selection, and testicular sperm retrieval, have been explored in cases of elevated SDF; however, supporting evidence remains limited. A shortened ejaculatory abstinence interval, typically 24 h or less, has been proposed as a non-invasive strategy to reduce SDF, though its efficacy remains to be fully elucidated. The American Urological Association (AUA) regards SDF testing as investigational. While the AUA discourages its routine use, it permits consideration in select cases, such as RPL or unexplained IVF/ICSI failure. Due to methodological inconsistencies and the lack of standardized thresholds, SDF testing is best applied within an individualized, evidence-informed clinical framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42036606What 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.