Dataset Information

A systematic review and standardized clinical validity assessment of male infertility genes.

ABSTRACT:

Study question

Which genes are confidently linked to human monogenic male infertility?

Summary answer

Our systematic literature search and clinical validity assessment reveals that a total of 78 genes are currently confidently linked to 92 human male infertility phenotypes.

What is known already

The discovery of novel male infertility genes is rapidly accelerating with the availability of next-generating sequencing methods, but the quality of evidence for gene-disease relationships varies greatly. In order to improve genetic research, diagnostics and counseling, there is a need for an evidence-based overview of the currently known genes.

Study design, size, duration

We performed a systematic literature search and evidence assessment for all publications in Pubmed until December 2018 covering genetic causes of male infertility and/or defective male genitourinary development.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Two independent reviewers conducted the literature search and included papers on the monogenic causes of human male infertility and excluded papers on genetic association or risk factors, karyotype anomalies and/or copy number variations affecting multiple genes. Next, the quality and the extent of all evidence supporting selected genes was weighed by a standardized scoring method and used to determine the clinical validity of each gene-disease relationship as expressed by the following six categories: no evidence, limited, moderate, strong, definitive or unable to classify.

Main results and the role of chance

From a total of 23 526 records, we included 1337 publications about monogenic causes of male infertility leading to a list of 521 gene-disease relationships. The clinical validity of these gene-disease relationships varied widely and ranged from definitive (n = 38) to strong (n = 22), moderate (n = 32), limited (n = 93) or no evidence (n = 160). A total of 176 gene-disease relationships could not be classified because our scoring method was not suitable.

Large scale data

Not applicable.

Limitations, reasons for caution

Our literature search was limited to Pubmed.

Wider implications of the findings

The comprehensive overview will aid researchers and clinicians in the field to establish gene lists for diagnostic screening using validated gene-disease criteria and help to identify gaps in our knowledge of male infertility. For future studies, the authors discuss the relevant and important international guidelines regarding research related to gene discovery and provide specific recommendations for the field of male infertility.

Study funding/competing interest(s)

This work was supported by a VICI grant from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (918-15-667 to J.A.V.), the Royal Society, and Wolfson Foundation (WM160091 to J.A.V.) as well as an investigator award in science from the Wellcome Trust (209451 to J.A.V.).

Prospero registration number

None.

SUBMITTER: Oud MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6505449 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Dietary assessment methods that are recognized as appropriate for the general population are usually applied in a similar manner to athletes, despite the knowledge that sport-specific factors can complicate assessment and impact accuracy in unique ways. As dietary assessment methods are used extensively within the field of sports nutrition, there is concern the validity of methodologies have not undergone more rigorous evaluation in this unique population sub-group. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare two or more methods of dietary assessment, including dietary intake measured against biomarkers or reference measures of energy expenditure, in athletes. Six electronic databases were searched for English-language, full-text articles published from January 1980 until June 2016. The search strategy combined the following keywords: diet, nutrition assessment, athlete, and validity; where the following outcomes are reported but not limited to: energy intake, macro and/or micronutrient intake, food intake, nutritional adequacy, diet quality, or nutritional status. Meta-analysis was performed on studies with sufficient methodological similarity, with between-group standardized mean differences (or effect size) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) being calculated. Of the 1624 studies identified, 18 were eligible for inclusion. Studies comparing self-reported energy intake (EI) to energy expenditure assessed via doubly labelled water were grouped for comparison (n = 11) and demonstrated mean EI was under-estimated by 19% (-2793 ± 1134 kJ/day). Meta-analysis revealed a large pooled effect size of -1.006 (95% CI: -1.3 to -0.7; p < 0.001). The remaining studies (n = 7) compared a new dietary tool or instrument to a reference method(s) (e.g., food record, 24-h dietary recall, biomarker) as part of a validation study. This systematic review revealed there are limited robust studies evaluating dietary assessment methods in athletes. Existing literature demonstrates the substantial variability between methods, with under- and misreporting of intake being frequently observed. There is a clear need for careful validation of dietary assessment methods, including emerging technical innovations, among athlete populations.

Project description:It is widely accepted that oxidative stress plays an important role in the pathophysiology of male infertility and that antioxidants could have a significant role in the treatment of male infertility. The main objectives of this study are: 1) to systematically review the current evidence for the utility of antioxidants in the treatment of male infertility; and 2) propose evidence-based clinical guidelines for the use of antioxidants in the treatment of male infertility. A systematic review of the available clinical evidence was performed, with articles published on Scopus being manually screened. Data extracted included the type of antioxidant used, the clinical conditions under investigation, the evaluation of semen parameters and reproductive outcomes. The adherence to the Cambridge Quality Checklist, Cochrane Risk of Bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), CONSORT guidelines and JADAD score were analyzed for each included study. Further, we provided a Strength Weakness Opportunity Threat (SWOT) analysis to analyze the current and future value of antioxidants in male infertility. Of the 1,978 articles identified, 97 articles were included in the study. Of these, 52 (53.6%) were uncontrolled (open label), 12 (12.4%) unblinded RCTs, and 33 (34.0%) blinded RCTs, whereas 44 (45.4%) articles tested individual antioxidants, 31 (32.0%) a combination of several products in variable dosages, and 22 (22.6%) registered antioxidant products. Based on the published evidence, we 1) critically examined the necessity of additional double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, and 2) proposed updated evidence-based clinical guidelines for antioxidant therapy in male infertility. The current systematic review on antioxidants and male infertility clearly shows that antioxidant supplementation improves semen parameters. In addition, it provides the indications for antioxidant treatment in specific clinical conditions, including varicocele, unexplained and idiopathic male infertility, as well as in cases of altered semen quality.