Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 316

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 359 of the 359 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sperm DNA Fragmentation: A New Guideline for Clinicians

Open access
Agarwal, Ashok, Majzoub, Ahmad, Baskaran, Saradha, Panner Selvam, Manesh Kumar, Cho, Chak Lam, Henkel, Ralf, Finelli, Renata, Leisegang, Kristian, Sengupta, Pallav, Barbarosie, Catalina, Parekh, Neel, Alves, Marco G., Ko, Edmund, Arafa, Mohamed, Tadros, Nicholas, Ramasamy, Ranjith, Kavoussi, Parviz, Ambar, Rafael, Kuchakulla, Manish, Robert, Kathy Amy, Iovine, Concetta, Durairajanayagam, Damayanthi, Jindal, Sunil, Shah, Rupin·2020·The World Journal of Men's Health

Abstract

Sperm DNA integrity is crucial for fertilization and development of healthy offspring. The spermatozoon undergoes extensive molecular remodeling of its nucleus during later phases of spermatogenesis, which imparts compaction and protects the genetic content. Testicular (defective maturation and abortive apoptosis) and post-testicular (oxidative stress) mechanisms are implicated in the etiology of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), which affects both natural and assisted reproduction. Several clinical and environmental factors are known to negatively impact sperm DNA integrity. An increasing number of reports emphasizes the direct relationship between sperm DNA damage and male infertility. Currently, several assays are available to assess sperm DNA damage, however, routine assessment of SDF in clinical practice is not recommended by professional organizations. This article provides an overview of SDF types, origin and comparative analysis of various SDF assays while primarily focusing on the clinical indications of SDF testing. Importantly, we report four clinical cases where SDF testing had played a significant role in improving fertility outcome. In light of these clinical case reports and recent scientific evidence, this review provides expert recommendations on SDF testing and examines the advantages and drawbacks of the clinical utility of SDF testing using Strength-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5534/wjmh.200128

Cites

359 of 359 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 359 references

Cited by

See all 316

Metadata

Authors
Agarwal, A., Majzoub, A., Baskaran, S., Panner Selvam, M. K., Cho, C. L., Henkel, R., Finelli, R., Leisegang, K., Sengupta, P., Barbarosie, C., Parekh, N., Alves, M. G., Ko, E., Arafa, M., Tadros, N., Ramasamy, R., Kavoussi, P., Ambar, R., Kuchakulla, M., Robert, K. A., Iovine, C., Durairajanayagam, D., Jindal, S., & Shah, R.
Venue
The World Journal of Men's Health
Publisher
XMLink
Published
2020
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
412
ISSN
  • 2287-4208 (ISSN-L)
  • 2287-4690
OpenAlex
W3048835988
Cited by
316
References
359
FWCI
24.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sperm DNA Fragmentation: A New Guideline for Clinicians. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5534/wjmh.200128
The paper
Agarwal, A., Majzoub, A., Baskaran, S., Panner Selvam, M. K., Cho, C. L., Henkel, R., Finelli, R., Leisegang, K., Sengupta, P., Barbarosie, C., Parekh, N., Alves, M. G., Ko, E., Arafa, M., Tadros, N., Ramasamy, R., Kavoussi, P., Ambar, R., Kuchakulla, M., . . . Shah, R. (2020). Sperm DNA Fragmentation: A New Guideline for Clinicians. The World Journal of Men's Health. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.200128

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.