Sandro C Esteves1, Peter Chan. 1. ANDROFERT, Andrology and Human Reproduction Clinic, Campinas, SP, 13075-460, Brazil, s.esteves@androfert.com.br.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We systematically identified and reviewed the methods and consistency of recommendations of recently developed clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and best practice statements (BPS) on the evaluation of the infertile male. METHODS: MEDLINE and related engines as well as guidelines' Web sites were searched for CPG and BPS written in English on the general evaluation of male infertility published between January 2008 and April 2015. RESULTS: Four guidelines were identified, all of which reported to have been recently updated. Systematic review was not consistently used in the BPS despite being reported in the CPG. Only one of them reported having a patient representative in its development team. The CPG issued by the European Association of Urology (EAU) graded some recommendations and related that to levels (but not quality) of evidence. Overall, the BPS issued respectively by the American Urological Association and American Society for Reproductive Medicine concurred with each other, but both differed from the EAU guidelines with regard to methods of collection, extraction and interpretation of data. None of the guidelines incorporated health economics. Important specific limitations of conventional semen analysis results were ignored by all guidelines. Besides variation in the methodological quality, implementation strategies were not reported in two out of four guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: While the various panels of experts who contributed to the development of the CPG and BPS reviewed should be commended on their tremendous efforts aiming to establish a clinical standard in both the evaluation and management of male infertility, we recognized inconsistencies in the methodology of their synthesis and in the contents of their final recommendations. These discrepancies pose a barrier in the general implementation of these guidelines and may limit their utility in standardizing clinical practice or improving health-related outcomes. Continuous efforts are needed to generate high-quality evidence to allow further development of these important guidelines for the evaluation and management of males suffering from infertility.
PURPOSE: We systematically identified and reviewed the methods and consistency of recommendations of recently developed clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and best practice statements (BPS) on the evaluation of the infertile male. METHODS: MEDLINE and related engines as well as guidelines' Web sites were searched for CPG and BPS written in English on the general evaluation of male infertility published between January 2008 and April 2015. RESULTS: Four guidelines were identified, all of which reported to have been recently updated. Systematic review was not consistently used in the BPS despite being reported in the CPG. Only one of them reported having a patient representative in its development team. The CPG issued by the European Association of Urology (EAU) graded some recommendations and related that to levels (but not quality) of evidence. Overall, the BPS issued respectively by the American Urological Association and American Society for Reproductive Medicine concurred with each other, but both differed from the EAU guidelines with regard to methods of collection, extraction and interpretation of data. None of the guidelines incorporated health economics. Important specific limitations of conventional semen analysis results were ignored by all guidelines. Besides variation in the methodological quality, implementation strategies were not reported in two out of four guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: While the various panels of experts who contributed to the development of the CPG and BPS reviewed should be commended on their tremendous efforts aiming to establish a clinical standard in both the evaluation and management of male infertility, we recognized inconsistencies in the methodology of their synthesis and in the contents of their final recommendations. These discrepancies pose a barrier in the general implementation of these guidelines and may limit their utility in standardizing clinical practice or improving health-related outcomes. Continuous efforts are needed to generate high-quality evidence to allow further development of these important guidelines for the evaluation and management of males suffering from infertility.
Authors: Jonathan P Jarow; Ira D Sharlip; Arnold M Belker; Larry I Lipshultz; Mark Sigman; Anthony J Thomas; Peter N Schlegel; Stuart S Howards; Ajay Nehra; Marian D Damewood; James W Overstreet; Richard Sadovsky Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jan W van der Steeg; Pieternel Steures; Marinus J C Eijkemans; J Dik F Habbema; Peter G A Hompes; Jan A M Kremer; Loes van der Leeuw-Harmsen; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Sjoerd Repping; Sherman J Silber; Ben W J Mol; Fulco van der Veen Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2010-03-24 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: A Ferlin; A E Calogero; C Krausz; F Lombardo; D Paoli; R Rago; C Scarica; M Simoni; C Foresta; V Rochira; E Sbardella; S Francavilla; G Corona Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Sandro C Esteves; Armand Zini; Robert Matthew Coward; Donald P Evenson; Jaime Gosálvez; Sheena E M Lewis; Rakesh Sharma; Peter Humaidan Journal: Andrologia Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 2.775