Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33738559›Full record

ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2021

[Vasectomy : Current information].

Thomas Kreutzig-Langenfeld, Ekaterina Lellig, Peter Hinz, Fabian Zilg

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Vasectomy reversal : Literature review].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas Kreutzig-LangenfeldUrologische Praxis & Vasektomiezentrum Koblenz, Poststraße 8, 56068, Koblenz, Deutschland. dr.kreutzig1@me.com.
Ekaterina LelligUrologische Klinik, LMU München, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
Peter HinzUrologische Praxis, N7 9, 68161, Mannheim, Deutschland.
Fabian ZilgKlinik für Urologie und Urochirurgie, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Deutschland.
LMU Klinikum · DEOrthopädische Praxis · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vasectomy is considered to be the simplest, most effective and cheapest method of fertility control in men, with a significantly lower risk of morbidity and mortality compared to tubal ligation in women. Patient informed consent is particularly important and should include potential irreversibility, surgical options, anesthesia, possible complications as well as postoperative behavior and the need for re-evaluation. There are different access routes available with conventional and no-scalpel vasectomy as well as different techniques for closing the ends of the vas deferens. To confirm sterility the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommends that an ejaculate analysis should be performed 3 months after the procedure and after approximately 20 ejaculations. Complications are relatively rare, although particularly vasectomy failure due to recanalization has to be considered. Approximately 3-6% of vasectomized men strive for a refertilization, which with experienced surgeons is successful in about 90% of cases.

Indexed as

VasectomyContraceptionFemaleHumansMaleContraceptionContraception without side effectsFertilityHormone-free contraceptionMenNo-scalpel vasectomySterilization

Identifiers

PMID33738559
OpenAlexW3136332555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.