ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2020
A review of the evolving landscape between the consumer Internet and men's health.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Online Andrology: Real-World Status Quo of Patients' Online Information Sources and Comparison With Large Language Models in Germany.Andrology · 2026Article
- Guideline of guidelines: Peyronie's disease.BJU international · 2026Review
- Review
- Analysis of quality information provided by "Dr. YouTubeInternational journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Trends in testosterone prescription amongst medical specialties: a 5-year CMS data analysis.International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Comparing and Contrasting Peyronie's Disease Guidelines: Points of Consensus and Deviation.The journal of sexual medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Internet adoption continues to increase as broadband access and mobile connectivity penetrate developing global markets. Alongside increasing adoption, the Internet continues to evolve and usher in new modes of user interaction. Social media and search engines have facilitated the emergence of the participatory web, in which users are able to contribute content, form online communities, and disseminate information. This participatory web is reshaping the patient-physician relationship as patients are able to search for medical information, directly engage with healthcare practitioners through social media, and make therapeutic decisions via online marketplaces. The ability for patients to self-diagnose and self-treat is highly relevant to andrology, given that men have a baseline reluctance to visit healthcare providers. Furthermore, men's health issues such as erectile dysfunction and male infertility are stigmatized, with men turning to the Internet for guidance. The focus of this review is to survey the academic literature that evaluates the quality of online content for four common men's health conditions: hypogonadism, male infertility, erectile dysfunction, and Peyronie's disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.