Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences

: 2022  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 323--324

Editorial Commentary

Padma Rekha Jirge 
 Editor in Chief, JHRS; Department of Reproductive Medicine, Shreyas Hospital and Sushrut Assisted Conception Clinic, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Padma Rekha Jirge
Department of Reproductive Medicine, Shreyas Hospital and Sushrut Assisted Conception Clinic, 2013E, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur - 416 008, Maharashtra

How to cite this article:
Jirge PR. Editorial Commentary.J Hum Reprod Sci 2022;15:323-324

How to cite this URL:
Jirge PR. Editorial Commentary. J Hum Reprod Sci [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Mar 25 ];15:323-324
Available from:

Full Text

Welcome to the October - December issue of the Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences for the Year 2022! This issue comes with a review article, nine original articles, two case reports and a letter to the editor with reply from the authors of an original article published in a previous issue.

The narrative review by Gurunath addresses the condition of premature progesterone elevation, encountered in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. It provides a very comprehensive review of its causes and implications based on the current evidence.

Ehigiator et al. evaluate the role of glutamine supplementation in preserving the testicular function from the toxic effect of bisphenol in a laboratory experiment. In another laboratory based study, authors Özbilgin et al. observe the effect of gonadotropin stimulation on autophagy markers in ovaries of mice exposed to different doses of gonadotropins. The findings suggest a dose-effect relationship between gonadotropins and intraovarian autophagy markers.

Salehisedeh et al. have prospectively evaluated the dynamics of Insulin-like Growth Factor – 1 in men with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. A study of ovarian reserve markers by Kahyaoglu et al. in women with unexplained infertility following infection with COVID-19 suggest a lack of negative effect of the infection on ovarian reserve. However, as the authors aptly comment, despite these reassuring findings, larger prospective studies are needed to assess the impact, if any, of this infection on gonadal function. Sharma et al. describe the role of hysterosalpingography in infertile women with genital tuberculosis, in a prospective study. Mohamed et al. observe that high circulating levels of anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH) in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome does not have any negative impact on the endometrial thickness. This observation assumes clinical importance in view of the expression of AMH receptors in uterine endometrium.

A study by Sabbaghian et al. provides practical insights into the effect of sperm freezing and thawing on sperm deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragmentation. In a single centre retrospective study, Singh et al. report no difference in the clinical pregnancy rate based on an intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) timing of two to six hours after oocyte pickup. A single centre retrospective study by Mantravadi et al. reports on the safety of testicular sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in couples with severe male factor infertility. They report that the incidence of congenital malformations and miscarriages were similar to those where ejaculated sperm were used for ICSI.

A case report by Bhayana et al. reports the absence of SARS-CoV-2 in the follicular fluid aspirated from an individual infected with COVID-19 who underwent oocyte pickup. Chandanwale et al. report a rare case of combined occurrence of an ectopic pregnancy and serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma. There is also a communication regarding the use of microfluidics for sperm preparation based a previous publication in the journal.

One of the frequent reasons for repeated revisions of submitted original articles to the journal is lack of power calculation for retrospective studies. It is important to note that the quality of the manuscript can be substantially improved by performing a power calculation using appropriate methods for categorical or continuous outcome variables.[1],[2] This serves to prove the hypothesis of the study effectively, and may save cost and time.

The entire editorial team joins me in acknowledging the quality and timeliness of the blinded reviews performed by specialists across medical and other life science fraternities though the entire year. We are grateful for their selfless commitment, passion and contribution towards progress of medical science. A complete list of the reviewers for this year has been included in the issue.

We wish you all a happy reading and a very happy Year 2023!

Best Wishes.


1Kim J, Seo BS. How to calculate sample size and why. Clin Orthop Surg 2013;5:235-42.
2Johnston KM, Lakzadeh P, Donato BM, Szabo SM. Methods of sample size calculation in descriptive retrospective burden of illness studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:9.