4.1 Article

Diagnostic and therapeutic workup of male infertility: results from a Delphi consensus panel

期刊

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-021-00511-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Male factor infertility is a global issue with negative impact on couples. Current guidelines have gaps, leading to variability in management. Delphi consensus method can provide insights and bridge the gap between guidelines and practice.
Male factor infertility (MFI) is a rising issue worldwide with significant socioeconomic costs and negative psychological consequences for the couple. Current guidelines provide recommendations for its diagnosis and treatment but several gaps in the management of MFI are encountered in clinical practice due to the lack of available evidence in published literature. Uncertainty in the management of MFI cases leads to a high degree of variability in therapeutic approaches. We planned a Delphi consensus method to provide insights and help bridge the gaps that separate clinical guidelines from real-world practice. The Advisory Board collected 41 statements on debated topics in the management of MFI, each including multiple items designed as a 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaire was sent by e-mail to a panel of Italian experts for a first round of voting; members of the panel were later invited to a second round of voting, preceded by discussion of the hot topics identified in the first round. At both rounds of the Delphi consensus 68 experts participated to the voting process. After the first round 25 statements were identified as hot topics, and these underwent the second round of voting. Consensus was reached on many, but not all cases, leaving vagueness on few debated topics where decisions are unsupported by clinical studies or driven by controversial results. In conclusion, indications emerging from this large panel of experts may help guide the management of male factor infertility in clinical practice. Studies are needed to address unanswered questions left by cases for whom no consensus was reached.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据