Evidence Hub

Randomised trial of mesterolone versus vitamin C for male infertility. Scottish Infertility Group

Hargreave TB, Kyle KF, Baxby K, Rogers AC, Scott R, Tolley DA, Abel BJ, Orr PS et al.

British journal of urology, 1984

368 participants

Abstract

A prospective randomised trial was carried out to assess the effect of 9 months' treatment with either mesterolone or vitamin C in 368 men complaining of an infertile marriage. There was no significant difference in the wife's pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups. A separate analysis of the data was made to include only men with a low normal testosterone (less than 16 nmol/l) and low sperm density (less than 10 million/ml). This separate analysis was also restricted to men married to wives with normal test results for tubal patency and ovulation and again there was no difference in pregnancy rates between the two treatment groups. These results indicate that mesterolone therapy given in the absence of any defined endocrinopathy is of no benefit in promoting male fertility and furthermore we have been unable to find any subgroup who will respond. Improvements in the therapy of male infertility are only likely after a diagnosis has been defined.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 368 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free