Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a ...Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist＇s profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocete that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.展开更多
This study investigated the effects of varicocele on semen parameters in infertile men based on the new 2010 World Health Organization laboratory manual for the examination of human semen. Semen analysis results （vol...This study investigated the effects of varicocele on semen parameters in infertile men based on the new 2010 World Health Organization laboratory manual for the examination of human semen. Semen analysis results （volume, sperm count, motility, and morphology） were the primary outcomes. An electronic search to collect the data was conducted using the Medline/PubMed, SJU discover, and Google Scholar databases. We searched articles published from 2010 to August 2015, i.e., after the publication of the 2010 WHO manual. We included only those studies that reported the actual semen parameters of adult infertile men diagnosed with clinical varicocele and contained a control group of either fertile men or normozoospermic men who were not diagnosed with varicocele. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1232 men. Varicocele was associated with reduced sperm count （mean difference： -44.48 x 106 ml-1; 95% Ch -61.45, -27.51 x 106 ml-1; P〈 0.001）, motility （mean difference： -26.67%; 95% Ch -34.27, -19.08; P 〈 0.001）, and morphology （mean difference： -19.68%; 95% Ch -29.28, -10.07; P 〈 0.001） but not semen volume （mean difference： -0.23 ml; 95% CI： -0.64, 0.17）. Subgroup analyses indicated that the magnitude of effect was influenced by control subtype but not WHO laboratory manual edition used for semen assessment. We conclude that varicocele is a significant risk factor that negatively affects semen quality, but the observed pooled effect size on semen parameters does not seem to be affected by the WHO laboratory manual edition. Given most of the studies published after 2010 still utilized the 1999 manual for semen analysis, further research is required to fully understand the clinical implication of the 2010 WHO laboratory manual on the association between varicocele and semen parameters.展开更多
文摘Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist＇s profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocete that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.
文摘This study investigated the effects of varicocele on semen parameters in infertile men based on the new 2010 World Health Organization laboratory manual for the examination of human semen. Semen analysis results （volume, sperm count, motility, and morphology） were the primary outcomes. An electronic search to collect the data was conducted using the Medline/PubMed, SJU discover, and Google Scholar databases. We searched articles published from 2010 to August 2015, i.e., after the publication of the 2010 WHO manual. We included only those studies that reported the actual semen parameters of adult infertile men diagnosed with clinical varicocele and contained a control group of either fertile men or normozoospermic men who were not diagnosed with varicocele. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1232 men. Varicocele was associated with reduced sperm count （mean difference： -44.48 x 106 ml-1; 95% Ch -61.45, -27.51 x 106 ml-1; P〈 0.001）, motility （mean difference： -26.67%; 95% Ch -34.27, -19.08; P 〈 0.001）, and morphology （mean difference： -19.68%; 95% Ch -29.28, -10.07; P 〈 0.001） but not semen volume （mean difference： -0.23 ml; 95% CI： -0.64, 0.17）. Subgroup analyses indicated that the magnitude of effect was influenced by control subtype but not WHO laboratory manual edition used for semen assessment. We conclude that varicocele is a significant risk factor that negatively affects semen quality, but the observed pooled effect size on semen parameters does not seem to be affected by the WHO laboratory manual edition. Given most of the studies published after 2010 still utilized the 1999 manual for semen analysis, further research is required to fully understand the clinical implication of the 2010 WHO laboratory manual on the association between varicocele and semen parameters.
