Surgery or embolisation for varicoceles in subfertile men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A varicoceles is a meshwork of distended blood vessels in the scrotum, usually left-sided, due to dilatation of the spermatic vein. Although the concept that varicoceles causes, and varicocelectomy cures, male subfertility has been around for almost fifty years, the mechanisms by which varicoceles would affect fertility have not yet been satisfactorily explained, and neither have the mechanisms by which varicocelectomy would restore fertility. Furthermore, it has been questioned whether a causal relation exists at all between the distension of the pampiniform plexus and impairment of fertility. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of varicoceles treatment on pregnancy rate in subfertile couples. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (12 Sept 2003 and October 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2004 and Issue 4, 2007), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2007), EMBASE (January 1985 to October 2007) and reference lists of articles. In addition, we handsearched specialist journals in the field from their first issue until 2007. We also checked cross-references, references from review articles and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they were relevant to the clinical question posed, if they reported pregnancy rates as an outcome measure, and if they reported data in treated (surgical ligation or radiological embolisation of the internal spermatic vein) and untreated groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria for the original review. One was an extension of a previously published study, which left eight studies for analysis. All eight only included men from couples with subfertility problems; one excluded men with sperm counts less than 5 million per mL and one men with sperm counts less than 2 million per mL, with or without progressive motility of less than 10%. Two trials involving clinical varicoceles included some men with normal semen analysis. Three studies specifically addressed only men with subclinical varicoceles. Two authors independently screened potentially relevant trials. Any differences of opinion were resolved by consensus (none occurred for this review). Studies were excluded from meta-analysis if they made comparisons other than those specified above. MAIN RESULTS: The combined Peto odds ratio (OR) of the eight studies is 1.10 (95%CI 0.73 to 1.68), indicating no benefit of varicoceles treatment over expectant management in subfertile couples in whom varicoceles in the man is the only abnormal finding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that treatment of varicoceles in men from couples with otherwise unexplained subfertility improves the couple's chance of conception.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".