Purpose: This is the first study to design and assess a research capacity building (RCB) specifically tailored for clinical and non-clinical andrology practitioners worldwide. We appraised: 1) the barriers and enablers to research among these practitioners; 2) attendees’ satisfaction with the webinar; and 3) research knowledge acquisition as a result of the webinar (before/after quiz). Materials and Methods: A online RCB webinar was designed, comprising two presentations in research design and systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA). An online survey using validated published questionnaires assessed the three above-stated objectives. Paired t-test compared the means of the pre- and post-webinar scores. Subgroup analysis was performed on the participants’ professional background, sex, and number of years in practice. Results: A total of 237 participants attended the webinar, of which 184 completed the survey and are included in the current analysis. Male participants were about double the females and 60.9% were from Asian countries. The most common research enablers were to publish scientific papers (14.8%) and to develop research (14.7%) or new skills (12.7%). The most common barriers were the lack of training in research (12.4%), training in research software (11.8%), and time for research (11.8%). Satisfaction with the webinar was considerably high (86.3%–88.4%) for the different features of the webinar. Compared to the pre-webinar knowledge level, there were significant improvements in participants’ research knowledge acquisition after the webinar in terms of the total score for the quiz (13.7±4.31 vs. 21.5±4.7), as well as the scores for the study design (7.12±2.37 vs. 11.5±2.69) and SR/MA sessions (6.63±2.63 vs. 9.93±2.49) (p<0.001 for each). Conclusions Clinical and non-clinical andrology webinar attendees recognized the importance of research and exhibited a range of research skills, knowledge and experience. There were significant improvements in the participants’ knowledge and understanding of the components of scientific research. We propose an RCB model that can be implemented and further modeled by organizations with similar academic research goals.

Purpose: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are used to generate evidence-based guidelines. Although the number of SRMAs published in the literature has increased dramatically in the last decade, the training and the experience of the researchers performing the SRMAs are usually not explained in the SRMAs’ methodology, and this may be a source of bias. Although some studies pointed out the need for quality control of SRMAs and training in proper statistical methods, to the best of our knowledge, no study has reported the importance of training the researchers that conduct the SRMAs. The aim of this study is to describe a training program designed to impart the essential knowledge and skills required for the conduct of an SRMA and to assess the need for, and outcome of, such a training. Materials and Methods: Researchers were trained for use of Scopus, study eligibility, assessment of the quality of evidence (QoE) through the Cambridge Quality Checklist for observational studies, as well as the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines, and the Jadad score for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) questions and data extraction. A total of 35 of them were approved to join a planned SRMA. At the end of the SRMA, they were administered 43 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on demographics, motivation for participation in the SRMA, self-perceived change in knowledge before and after conducting the SRMA, and self-assessment of performance. The senior researchers then revised the spreadsheet of the SRMA and, based on the mistakes found, organized a training focused on the correct assessment of the study design, where 43 researchers (9 joined midway) and 11 trainees with no experience in conducting SRMA attended. They all were tested through a 5 MCQ assessment that was administered before and after the training. Those scoring poorly were re-trained and re-tested, and only those scoring satisfactorily were admitted to further SRMAs. Results: Approximately 54.3% of the participants were medical doctors (MD), 31.4% were urologists and 48.6% had previous experience with SRMAs. Joining an international collaborative study was the main motivation, chosen by 19.7% of researchers. The results of the self-perceived change in knowledge showed a significant improvement in the use of Scopus, checklists for QoE, PICO questions, data required to perform a meta-analysis, and critical reading of scientific articles. Also, the majority of the researchers ranked the quality of their work as high. The pre-test results of the 5 MCQ showed a low score, which was not different from that achieved by a group of fresh trainees (median, 2; IQR 1–3 vs. median, 1; IQR, 1–2; p=0.3). Post-training there was significant improvement in both groups (researchers: median, 4; IQR, 3–5 vs. median, 2; IQR, 1–3; p<0.001; trainees: median, 4; IQR, 3–4 vs. median, 1; IQR, 1–2; p=0.02). Out of the 44 researchers, 12 (27.3%) scored poorly (≤3). After re-training, all of them scored satisfactorily (>3) and were admitted to subsequent SRMAs. Conclusions At the end of our model, 100% of researchers participating in this study were validated to be included in a meta-analysis. This validation required the involvement of the MT, two meetings, a self-evaluation survey, and one or two sets of objective tests with explanations and corrections. Our results indicate that even well-trained clinicians are naïve when it comes to the methodology of SRMA. All the researchers performing an SRMA need comprehensive training that must cover each aspect of the SRMA methodology. This paper provides a replicable training program that could be used by other investigators to train the researchers to perform high-quality SRMAs.

Purpose: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) represents the persistent absence of sperm in ejaculate without obstruction, stemming from diverse disease processes. This survey explores global practices in NOA diagnosis, comparing them with guidelines and offering expert recommendations. Materials and Methods: A 56-item questionnaire survey on NOA diagnosis and management was conducted globally from July to September 2022. This paper focuses on part 1, evaluating NOA diagnosis. Data from 367 participants across 49 countries were analyzed descriptively, with a Delphi process used for expert recommendations. Results: Of 336 eligible responses, most participants were experienced attending physicians (70.93%). To diagnose azoospermia definitively, 81.7% requested two semen samples. Commonly ordered hormone tests included serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (97.0%), total testosterone (92.9%), and luteinizing hormone (86.9%). Genetic testing was requested by 66.6%, with karyotype analysis (86.2%) and Y chromosome microdeletions (88.3%) prevalent. Diagnostic testicular biopsy, distinguishing obstructive azoospermia (OA) from NOA, was not performed by 45.1%, while 34.6% did it selectively. Differentiation relied on physical examination (76.1%), serum hormone profiles (69.6%), and semen tests (68.1%). Expectations of finding sperm surgically were higher in men with normal FSH, larger testes, and a history of sperm in ejaculate. Conclusions This expert survey, encompassing 367 participants from 49 countries, unveils congruence with recommended guidelines in NOA diagnosis. However, noteworthy disparities in practices suggest a need for evidence-based, international consensus guidelines to standardize NOA evaluation, addressing existing gaps in professional recommendations.

Purpose: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) represents the persistent absence of sperm in ejaculate without obstruction, stemming from diverse disease processes. This survey explores global practices in NOA diagnosis, comparing them with guidelines and offering expert recommendations. Materials and Methods: A 56-item questionnaire survey on NOA diagnosis and management was conducted globally from July to September 2022. This paper focuses on part 1, evaluating NOA diagnosis. Data from 367 participants across 49 countries were analyzed descriptively, with a Delphi process used for expert recommendations. Results: Of 336 eligible responses, most participants were experienced attending physicians (70.93%). To diagnose azoospermia definitively, 81.7% requested two semen samples. Commonly ordered hormone tests included serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (97.0%), total testosterone (92.9%), and luteinizing hormone (86.9%). Genetic testing was requested by 66.6%, with karyotype analysis (86.2%) and Y chromosome microdeletions (88.3%) prevalent. Diagnostic testicular biopsy, distinguishing obstructive azoospermia (OA) from NOA, was not performed by 45.1%, while 34.6% did it selectively. Differentiation relied on physical examination (76.1%), serum hormone profiles (69.6%), and semen tests (68.1%). Expectations of finding sperm surgically were higher in men with normal FSH, larger testes, and a history of sperm in ejaculate. Conclusions This expert survey, encompassing 367 participants from 49 countries, unveils congruence with recommended guidelines in NOA diagnosis. However, noteworthy disparities in practices suggest a need for evidence-based, international consensus guidelines to standardize NOA evaluation, addressing existing gaps in professional recommendations.

Purpose: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) represents the persistent absence of sperm in ejaculate without obstruction, stemming from diverse disease processes. This survey explores global practices in NOA diagnosis, comparing them with guidelines and offering expert recommendations. Materials and Methods: A 56-item questionnaire survey on NOA diagnosis and management was conducted globally from July to September 2022. This paper focuses on part 1, evaluating NOA diagnosis. Data from 367 participants across 49 countries were analyzed descriptively, with a Delphi process used for expert recommendations. Results: Of 336 eligible responses, most participants were experienced attending physicians (70.93%). To diagnose azoospermia definitively, 81.7% requested two semen samples. Commonly ordered hormone tests included serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (97.0%), total testosterone (92.9%), and luteinizing hormone (86.9%). Genetic testing was requested by 66.6%, with karyotype analysis (86.2%) and Y chromosome microdeletions (88.3%) prevalent. Diagnostic testicular biopsy, distinguishing obstructive azoospermia (OA) from NOA, was not performed by 45.1%, while 34.6% did it selectively. Differentiation relied on physical examination (76.1%), serum hormone profiles (69.6%), and semen tests (68.1%). Expectations of finding sperm surgically were higher in men with normal FSH, larger testes, and a history of sperm in ejaculate. Conclusions This expert survey, encompassing 367 participants from 49 countries, unveils congruence with recommended guidelines in NOA diagnosis. However, noteworthy disparities in practices suggest a need for evidence-based, international consensus guidelines to standardize NOA evaluation, addressing existing gaps in professional recommendations.

Purpose: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) represents the persistent absence of sperm in ejaculate without obstruction, stemming from diverse disease processes. This survey explores global practices in NOA diagnosis, comparing them with guidelines and offering expert recommendations. Materials and Methods: A 56-item questionnaire survey on NOA diagnosis and management was conducted globally from July to September 2022. This paper focuses on part 1, evaluating NOA diagnosis. Data from 367 participants across 49 countries were analyzed descriptively, with a Delphi process used for expert recommendations. Results: Of 336 eligible responses, most participants were experienced attending physicians (70.93%). To diagnose azoospermia definitively, 81.7% requested two semen samples. Commonly ordered hormone tests included serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (97.0%), total testosterone (92.9%), and luteinizing hormone (86.9%). Genetic testing was requested by 66.6%, with karyotype analysis (86.2%) and Y chromosome microdeletions (88.3%) prevalent. Diagnostic testicular biopsy, distinguishing obstructive azoospermia (OA) from NOA, was not performed by 45.1%, while 34.6% did it selectively. Differentiation relied on physical examination (76.1%), serum hormone profiles (69.6%), and semen tests (68.1%). Expectations of finding sperm surgically were higher in men with normal FSH, larger testes, and a history of sperm in ejaculate. Conclusions This expert survey, encompassing 367 participants from 49 countries, unveils congruence with recommended guidelines in NOA diagnosis. However, noteworthy disparities in practices suggest a need for evidence-based, international consensus guidelines to standardize NOA evaluation, addressing existing gaps in professional recommendations.

Purpose: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) represents the persistent absence of sperm in ejaculate without obstruction, stemming from diverse disease processes. This survey explores global practices in NOA diagnosis, comparing them with guidelines and offering expert recommendations. Materials and Methods: A 56-item questionnaire survey on NOA diagnosis and management was conducted globally from July to September 2022. This paper focuses on part 1, evaluating NOA diagnosis. Data from 367 participants across 49 countries were analyzed descriptively, with a Delphi process used for expert recommendations. Results: Of 336 eligible responses, most participants were experienced attending physicians (70.93%). To diagnose azoospermia definitively, 81.7% requested two semen samples. Commonly ordered hormone tests included serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (97.0%), total testosterone (92.9%), and luteinizing hormone (86.9%). Genetic testing was requested by 66.6%, with karyotype analysis (86.2%) and Y chromosome microdeletions (88.3%) prevalent. Diagnostic testicular biopsy, distinguishing obstructive azoospermia (OA) from NOA, was not performed by 45.1%, while 34.6% did it selectively. Differentiation relied on physical examination (76.1%), serum hormone profiles (69.6%), and semen tests (68.1%). Expectations of finding sperm surgically were higher in men with normal FSH, larger testes, and a history of sperm in ejaculate. Conclusions This expert survey, encompassing 367 participants from 49 countries, unveils congruence with recommended guidelines in NOA diagnosis. However, noteworthy disparities in practices suggest a need for evidence-based, international consensus guidelines to standardize NOA evaluation, addressing existing gaps in professional recommendations.

Purpose: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated assisted reproductive technology (ART) success in infertile men with clinical varicocele and abnormal semen parameters who underwent varicocele repair (VR) before the ART procedure as compared to those who did not. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of the Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted using a specific query string to identify studies examining the impact of VR on ART outcomes, including fertilization rate, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss, and live-birth rate, until October 2023. Outcomes were analyzed based on the type of ART. Studies on VR in infertile men with non-obstructive azoospermia and those who underwent ART only due to female factor infertility were excluded from the study. Results: Out of 1,554 articles reviewed, only 9 met the inclusion criteria for the study. All the included articles were observational studies. The variability in study quality in the included literature resulted in a moderate overall risk of bias. Data analysis showed that for intrauterine insemination, there was no difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42, 2.45; p=0.97). However, for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), men with VR showed a significant improvement in fertilization rate (mean difference 10.9, 95% CI: 5.94, 15.89; p<0.01), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.78; p=0.01) and live-birth rate (OR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.45, 2.97; p<0.01), compared to men who did not undergo VR. Conclusions The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that VR has a positive impact on pregnancy and live birth rates after ICSI. However, biases like small sample sizes and heterogeneous populations highlight the need for larger, well-designed prospective studies to validate these findings.

Purpose: Despite the significant role of varicocele in the pathogenesis of male infertility, its association with anti-sperm antibodies (ASA) remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) aims to investigate the frequency of ASA positivity in men with varicocele. Materials and Methods: This SRMA is conducted in accordance with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. We investigated the frequency of ASA positivity in ejaculates or serum of men with varicocele as compared to men without varicocele (controls). A literature search was performed using the Scopus and PubMed databases following the Population Exposure Comparison Outcome, Study Design model. Data extracted from eligible studies were meta-analyzed and expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Out of 151 abstracts identified during the initial screening, 6 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Using mixed antiglobulin reaction (MAR) assay, 61 out of the 153 (39.8%) patients with varicocele tested positive for ASA in their ejaculates as compared to 22 out of the 129 control subjects (17%, OR=4.34 [95% CI: 1.09–17.28]; p=0.04). Using direct or indirect immunobead test, 30 out of 60 cases diagnosed with varicocele (50%) had shown ASA positivity in their ejaculates as compared to 16 out of 104 controls (15.4%, OR=3.57 [95% CI: 0.81–15.68]; p=0.09). Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), out of 89 varicocele patients, 33 (37.1%) tested positive for serum ASA as compared to 9 out of 57 participants in the control group (15.8%, OR=7.87 [95% CI: 2.39–25.89]; p<0.01). Conclusions This SRMA indicates that ASA positivity is significantly higher among men with varicocele when tested by direct method (MAR) or indirect method (ELISA). This data suggests an immunological pathology in infertile men with varicocele and may have implications for the management of these patients.

Purpose: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated assisted reproductive technology (ART) success in infertile men with clinical varicocele and abnormal semen parameters who underwent varicocele repair (VR) before the ART procedure as compared to those who did not. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of the Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted using a specific query string to identify studies examining the impact of VR on ART outcomes, including fertilization rate, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss, and live-birth rate, until October 2023. Outcomes were analyzed based on the type of ART. Studies on VR in infertile men with non-obstructive azoospermia and those who underwent ART only due to female factor infertility were excluded from the study. Results: Out of 1,554 articles reviewed, only 9 met the inclusion criteria for the study. All the included articles were observational studies. The variability in study quality in the included literature resulted in a moderate overall risk of bias. Data analysis showed that for intrauterine insemination, there was no difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42, 2.45; p=0.97). However, for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), men with VR showed a significant improvement in fertilization rate (mean difference 10.9, 95% CI: 5.94, 15.89; p<0.01), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.78; p=0.01) and live-birth rate (OR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.45, 2.97; p<0.01), compared to men who did not undergo VR. Conclusions The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that VR has a positive impact on pregnancy and live birth rates after ICSI. However, biases like small sample sizes and heterogeneous populations highlight the need for larger, well-designed prospective studies to validate these findings.