Producing Cochrane systematic reviews—a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation and improvement

Background: Producing high-quality, relevant systematic reviews and keeping them up to date is challenging. Cochrane is a leading provider of systematic reviews in health. For Cochrane to continue to contribute to improvements in heath, Cochrane Reviews must be rigorous, reliable and up to date. We aimed to explore existing models of Cochrane Review production and emerging opportunities to improve the efficiency and sustainability of these processes. Methods: To inform discussions about how to best achieve this, we conducted 26 interviews and an online survey with 106 respondents. Results: Respondents highlighted the importance and challenge of creating reliable, timely systematic reviews. They described the challenges and opportunities presented by current production models, and they shared what they are doing to improve review production. They particularly highlighted significant challenges with increasing complexity of review methods; difficulty keeping authors on board and on track; and the length of time required to complete the process. Strong themes emerged about the roles of authors and Review Groups, the central actors in the review production process. The results suggest that improvements to Cochrane's systematic review production models could come from improving clarity of roles and expectations, ensuring continuity and consistency of input, enabling active management of the review process, centralising some review production steps; breaking reviews into smaller "chunks", and improving approaches to building capacity of and sharing information between authors and Review Groups. Respondents noted the important role new technologies have to play in enabling these improvements. Conclusions: The findings of this study will inform the development of new Cochrane Review production models and may provide valuable data for other systematic review producers as they consider how best to produce rigorous, reliable, up-to-date reviews

Los detenidos-desaparecidos pertenecientes a la comunidad judía durante la dictadura argentina de 1976-1983

L’année 1983 marque la fin de la dictature la plus terrible de l’histoire de l’Argentine. Parmi l’effrayant chiffre de trente mille disparus, il y avait trois mille membres de la communauté juive qui ont été victimes de la dernière dictature militaire (1976-1983). La présente thèse vise à décrire les caractéristiques de ces membres de la communauté juive et à dévoiler les raisons pour lesquelles ils ont été tués et portés disparus. Les principaux sujets abordés pour trouver des réponses à ce phénomène seront les suivants : L’antisémitisme extrême de la « Junta », les actions entreprises par les institutions officielles juives pendant cette période et l'émergence d'un mouvement juif alternatif dont l’objectif était la défense des droits humains des juifs disparus. _____________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : justice social, droits humains, mouvement sociaux, judaïsme, génocide, autoritarisme, antisémitisme

La inmigración argentina a la provincia de Quebec luego de la crisis del año 2001

Durant les trente dernières années, l'Argentine a connu différentes crises politiques et économiques. À partir de 2001, ce pays a souffert d'une des pires crises économiques de son histoire : non seulement une dévaluation du peso argentin mais des effets irréparables sur la structure productive, les revenus des classes moyennes et basses, l'approfondissement de la pauvreté structurelle et l'augmentation du niveau de dénuement ainsi que de la dette externe. Pendant la période de 1970-2000, il y a eu des mouvements migratoires de manière régulière de l'Argentine vers la province de Québec. Néanmoins, à partir de l'éclatement de la dernière crise de 2001, la quantité d'immigrants argentins au Québec a quintuplé. Dans ce mémoire de maîtrise, nous allons analyser le rapport entre la crise économique et la dernière vague migratoire, les causes de l'augmentation de la quantité de ce mouvement migratoire, les raisons du choix du Québec comme destination, le rôle de la représentation du gouvernement de la province de Québec dans ce phénomène, les caractéristiques qui distinguent cette dernière migration des migrations antérieures, les moyens et les types d'insertion des argentins dans la société d'accueil et la tendance du groupe migratoire argentin. \ud ______________________________________________________________________________ \ud MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : crise économique, immigration de l'Amérique latine vers la province de Québec, réfugiés politiques, immigrants pour raisons économiques, réseaux sociaux, sociologie économique de l'immigration

How effective are the non-conventional ovarian stimulation protocols in ART? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of starting the ovarian stimulation on the early follicular phase (“Conventional”) with the newer range of non-conventional approaches starting in the luteal phase (“Luteal”), random-start, and studies implementing them in DuoStim (“Conventional”+“Luteal”). Methods: Systematic review. We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase, on March 2020. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials that compared “Luteal,” random-start ovarian stimulation or DuoStim with “Conventional”; we analyzed them by subgroups: oocyte freezing and patients undergoing ART treatments, both, in the general infertile population and among poor responders. Results: The following results come from a sensitivity analysis that included only the low/moderate risk of bias studies. When comparing “Luteal” to “Conventional,” clinically relevant differences in MII oocytes were ruled out in all subgroups. We found that “Luteal” probably increases the COH length both, in the general infertile population (OR 2.00 days, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.19, moderate-quality evidence) and in oocyte freezing cycles (MD 0.85 days, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.18, moderate-quality evidence). When analyzing DuoStim among poor responders, we found that it appears to generate a higher number of MII oocytes in comparison with a single “Conventional” (MD 3.35, 95%CI 2.54–4.15, moderate-quality evidence). Conclusion: Overall, this systematic review of the available data demonstrates that in poor responders, general infertile population and oocyte freezing for cancer stimulation in the late follicular and luteal phases can be utilized in non-conventional approaches such as random-start and DuoStim cycles, offering similar outcomes to the conventional cycles but potentially with increased flexibility, within a reduced time frame. However, more well-designed trials are required to establish certainty.Fil: Glujovsky, Demian. Centro de Estudios en Ginecología y Reproducción; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Pesce, Romina. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Miguens, Mariana. Centro de Estudios en Ginecología y Reproducción; ArgentinaFil: Sueldo, Carlos E.. Centro de Estudios en Ginecología y Reproducción; Argentina. University Of California, San Francisco; Estados UnidosFil: Lattes, Karinna. No especifíca;Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentin

Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?

Purpose: To evaluate if the authors of published systematic reviews (SRs) reported the level of quality of evidence (QoE) in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals and to analyze if they used an appropriate wording to describe it. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. We searched in PubMed for SRs published in 2017 in the five infertility journals with the highest impact factor. We analyzed the proportion of SRs published in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals that reported the SRs’ QoE, and the proportion of those SRs in which authors used consistent wording to describe QoE and magnitude of effect. Results: The QoE was reported in only 21.4% of the 42 included SRs and in less than 10% of the abstracts. Although we did not find important differences in the report of QoE of those that showed statistically significant differences or not, p value was associated with the wording chosen by the authors. We found inconsistent reporting of the size the effect estimate in 54.8% (23/42) and in the level of QoE in 92.9% (39/42). Whereas the effect size was more consistently expressed in studies with statistically significant findings, QoE was better expressed in those cases in which the p value was over 0.05. Conclusion: We found that in 2017, less than 25% of the authors reported the overall QoE when publishing SRs. Authors focused more on statistical significance as a binary concept than on methodological limitations like study design, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias. Authors should make efforts to report the QoE and interpret results accordingly.Fil: Glujovsky, Demian. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Sueldo, Carlos E.. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Bardach, Ariel Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: del Pilar Valanzasca, María. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Comandé, Daniel. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentin

Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology

Background: Advances in embryo culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) practice from cleavage-stage embryo transfer to blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. The rationale for blastocyst-stage transfer is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos, thus resulting in better live birth rates. Objectives: To determine whether blastocyst-stage (day 5 to 6) embryo transfer improves the live birth rate (LBR) per fresh transfer, and other associated outcomes, compared with cleavage-stage (day 2 to 3) embryo transfer. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, from inception to October 2021. We also searched registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of studies retrieved. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of IVF with blastocyst-stage embryo transfer versus IVF with cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were LBR per fresh transfer and cumulative clinical pregnancy rates (cCPR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), multiple pregnancy, high-order multiple pregnancy, miscarriage (all following first embryo transfer), failure to transfer embryos, and whether supernumerary embryos were frozen for transfer at a later date (frozen-thawed embryo transfer). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. Main results: We included 32 RCTs (5821 couples or women). The live birth rate following fresh transfer was higher in the blastocyst-stage transfer group (odds ratio (OR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.51; I2 = 53%; 15 studies, 2219 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 31% of women achieve live birth after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 32% and 41% would do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer improves the cCPR. A post hoc analysis showed that vitrification could increase the cCPR. This is an interesting finding that warrants further investigation when more studies using vitrification are published. The CPR was also higher in the blastocyst-stage transfer group, following fresh transfer (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.39; I2 = 51%; 32 studies, 5821 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 39% of women achieve a clinical pregnancy after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 42% and 47% will probably do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer increases multiple pregnancy (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.33; I2 = 30%; 19 studies, 3019 women; low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rates (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.38; I2 = 24%; 22 studies, 4208 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 9% of women have a multiple pregnancy after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 8% and 12% would do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. However, a sensitivity analysis restricted only to studies with low or 'some concerns' for risk of bias, in the subgroup of equal number of embryos transferred, showed that blastocyst transfer probably increases the multiple pregnancy rate. Embryo freezing rates (when there are frozen supernumerary embryos for transfer at a later date) were lower in the blastocyst-stage transfer group (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57; I2 = 84%; 14 studies, 2292 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 60% of women have embryos frozen after cleavage-stage transfer, between 37% and 46% would do so after blastocyst-stage transfer. Failure to transfer any embryos was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.55; I2 = 36%; 17 studies, 2577 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 1% of women have no embryos transferred in planned fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 2% and 4% probably have no embryos transferred in planned fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. The evidence was of low quality for most outcomes. The main limitations were serious imprecision and serious risk of bias, associated with failure to describe acceptable methods of randomisation. Authors' conclusions: There is low-quality evidence for live birth and moderate-quality evidence for clinical pregnancy that fresh blastocyst-stage transfer is associated with higher rates of both than fresh cleavage-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer improves the cCPR derived from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles following a single oocyte retrieval. Although there is a benefit favouring blastocyst-stage transfer in fresh cycles, more evidence is needed to know whether the stage of transfer impacts on cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates. Future RCTs should report rates of live birth, cumulative live birth, and miscarriage. They should also evaluate women with a poor prognosis to enable those undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and service providers to make well-informed decisions on the best treatment option available.Fil: Glujovsky, Demián. Centro de Estudios en Ginecología y Reproducción; ArgentinaFil: Quinteiro Retamar, Andrea Marta. Centro de Estudios en Ginecología y Reproducción; ArgentinaFil: Alvarez Sedo, Cristian Roberto. Centro de Estudios en Ginecología y Reproducción; ArgentinaFil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Cornelisse, Simone. No especifíca;Fil: Blake, Deborah. No especifíca

Vasodilators for women undergoing fertility treatment

Background: The rate of successful pregnancies brought to term has barely increased since the first assisted reproductive technology (ART) technique became available. Vasodilators have been proposed to increase endometrial receptivity, thicken the endometrium, and favour uterine relaxation, all of which could improve uterine receptivity and enhance the chances for successful assisted pregnancy. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vasodilators in women undergoing fertility treatment. Search methods: We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers, and websites: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of of Controlled Trials, via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, the Open System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenSIGLE), the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of relevant articles. We conducted the search in October 2017 and applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vasodilators alone or in combination with other treatments versus placebo or no treatment or versus other agents in women undergoing fertility treatment. Data collection and analysis: Four review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and calculated risk ratios (RRs). We combined study data using a fixed-effect model and assessed evidence quality using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methods. Our primary outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and vasodilator side effects. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, endometrial thickness, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy. Main results: We included 15 studies with a total of 1326 women. All included studies compared a vasodilator versus placebo or no treatment. We judged most of these studies as having unclear risk of bias. Overall, the quality of evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes. The main limitations were imprecision due to low numbers of events and participants and risk of bias due to unclear methods of randomisation.Vasodilators probably make little or no difference in rates of live birth compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.69; three RCTs; N = 350; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) but probably increase overall rates of side effects including headache and tachycardia (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.66; four RCTs; N = 418; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence suggests that if 236 per 1000 women achieve live birth with placebo or no treatment, then between 196 and 398 per 1000 will do so with the use of vasodilators.Compared with placebo or no treatment, vasodilators may slightly improve clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.77; 11 RCTs; N = 1054; I² = 6%; low-quality evidence). Vasodilators probably make little or no difference in rates of multiple gestation (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.42; three RCTs; N = 370; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), miscarriage (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.86; three RCTs; N = 350; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), or ectopic pregnancy (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.69; two RCTs; N = 250; I² = 5%; low-quality evidence). All studies found benefit for endometrial thickening, but reported effects varied (I² = 92%) and ranged from a mean difference of 0.80 higher (95% CI 0.18 to 1.42) to 3.57 higher (95% CI 3.01 to 4.13) with very low-quality evidence, so we are uncertain how to interpret these results. Authors' conclusions: Evidence was insufficient to show whether vasodilators increase the live birth rate in women undergoing fertility treatment. However, low-quality evidence suggests that vasodilators may slightly increase clinical pregnancy rates. Moderate-quality evidence shows that vasodilators increase overall side effects in comparison with placebo or no treatment. Adequately powered studies are needed so that each treatment can be evaluated more accurately

The diagnosis of male infertility:an analysis of the evidence to support the developments of global WHO guidance. Challenges and future research opportunities

Background: Herein, we describe the consensus guideline methodology, summarize the evidence-based recommendations we provided to the World Health Organization (WHO) for their consideration in the development of global guidance and present a narrative review of the diagnosis of male infertility as related to the eight prioritized (problem or population (P), intervention (I), comparison (C) and outcome(s) (O) (PICO)) questions. Additionally, we discuss the challenges and research gaps identified during the synthesis of this evidence.Objective and Rationale: The aim of this paper is to present an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of male infertility as related to the eight prioritized PICO questions.Search Methods: Collating the evidence to support providing recommendations involved a collaborative process as developed by WHO, namely: identification of priority questions and critical outcomes; retrieval of up-to-date evidence and existing guidelines; assessment and synthesis of the evidence; and the formulation of draft recommendations to be used for reaching consensus with a wide range of global stakeholders. For each draft recommendation the quality of the supporting evidence was then graded and assessed for consideration during a WHO consensus.Outcomes: Evidence was synthesized and recommendations were drafted to address the diagnosis of male infertility specifically encompassing the following: What is the prevalence of male infertility and what proportion of infertility is attributable to the male? Is it necessary for all infertile men to undergo a thorough evaluation? What is the clinical (ART/non ART) value of traditional semen parameters? What key male lifestyle factors impact on fertility (focusing on obesity, heat and tobacco smoking)? Do supplementary oral antioxidants or herbal therapies significantly influence fertility outcomes for infertile men? What are the evidence-based criteria for genetic screening of infertile men? How does a history of neoplasia and related treatments in the male impact on (his and his partner’s) reproductive health and fertility options? And lastly, what is the impact of varicocele on male fertility and does correction of varicocele improve semen parameters and/or fertility?Wider Implications: This evidence synthesis analysis has been conducted in a manner to be considered for global applicability for the diagnosis of male infertility

Advanced sperm selection techniques for assisted reproduction (Review)

Background: Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) bring together gametes outside of the body to enhance the probability of fertilisation and pregnancy. Advanced sperm selection techniques are increasingly being employed in ART, most commonly in cycles utilising ICSI. Advanced sperm selection techniques are thought to improve the chance that structurally intact and mature sperm with high DNA integrity are selected for fertilisation. Advanced sperm selection strategies include selection according to surface charge; sperm apoptosis; sperm birefringence; ability to bind to hyaluronic acid; and sperm morphology under ultra-high magnification. These techniques theoretically improve ART outcomes. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of advanced sperm selection techniques on ART outcomes. Search methods: Systematic search of electronic databases (Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS)), trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), conference abstracts (Web of Knowledge) and grey literature (OpenGrey) for relevant randomised controlled trials. We handsearched the reference lists of included studies and similar reviews. The search was conducted in May 2014. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an advanced sperm selection technique versus standard IVF or ICSI or versus another advanced sperm selection technique. We excluded studies of sperm selection using ultra-high magnification (intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection, or IMSI), as they are the subject of a separate Cochrane review. Quasi-randomised and pseudo-randomised trials were excluded. Our primary outcome measure was live birth rate per woman randomly assigned. Secondary outcome measures included clinical pregnancy per woman randomly assigned, miscarriage per clinical pregnancy and fetal abnormality per clinical pregnancy. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of studies and risk of bias, and performed data extraction. Disagreements were resolved by consultation with a third review author. Study investigators were consulted to resolve other queries that arose. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to combine studies using a fixed-effect model, if sufficient data were available. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. Main results: Two RCTs were included in the review. Both evaluated sperm selection by hyaluronanic acid binding for ICSI, but only one reported live births. No studies were identified that were related to surface charge selection, sperm apoptosis or sperm birefringence. One RCT compared hyaluronanic acid binding versus conventional ICSI. Live birth was not reported. Evidence was insufficient to show whether there was a difference between groups in clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.22, one RCT, 482 women). This evidence was deemed to be of low quality, mainly as the result of poor reporting of methods and findings. Miscarriage data were unclear, and fetal abnormality rates were not reported. The other RCT compared two different hyaluronanic acid binding techniques, SpermSlow and physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection (PISCI). Evidence was insufficient to indicate whether there was a difference between groups in rates of live birth (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.05, one RCT, 99 women), clinical pregnancy (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.71, one RCT, 99 women) or miscarriage (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.44, one RCT, 41 women). The evidence for these comparisons was deemed to be of low quality, as it was limited by imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Fetal abnormality rates were not reported. Authors' conclusions: Evidence was insufficient to allow review authors to determine whether sperm selected by hyaluronanic acid binding improve live birth or pregnancy outcomes in ART, and no clear data on adverse effects were available. Evidence was also insufficient to show whether there is a difference in efficacy between the hyaluronic acid binding methods SpermSlow and PICSI. No randomised evidence evaluating sperm selection by sperm apoptosis, sperm birefringence or surface charge was found. Further studies of suitable quality are required to evaluate whether any of these advanced sperm selection techniques can be recommended for use in clinical practice

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

Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.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.).None.publishersversionPeer reviewe