ArticleF&S reports2020
Underutilization of primary medical care among men presenting for fertility evaluation.
Article in F&S reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Newly Diagnosed Diabetes Mellitus as an Etiology of Anejaculation and Primary Male Infertility: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Management of infertility among primary health care physicians in Morocco: a cross-sectional study.The Pan African medical journal · 2025Article
- Characteristics of men who use direct-to-consumer men's health telemedicine services.International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Health service underutilization and its associated factors for chronic diseases patients in poverty-stricken areas in China: a multilevel analysis.BMC health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the proportion of men presenting for fertility evaluation who reported having an established primary care physician (PCP).
designRetrospective, observational study.
settingAcademic health center. PATIENTS: All men presenting for initial male factor infertility consultation with a single reproductive urologist between 2002 and 2018.
interventionsMen were asked to provide the name of their PCP at the time of initial visit.
main outcome measuresDescriptive statistics characterized the proportion of men with a PCP at the time of evaluation and associations between PCP status and clinical characteristics.
resultsAmong 4,127 men presenting for initial fertility consultation, 844 (20.5%) reported having an established PCP, 480 (11.6%) reported no PCP, and 2,803 (67.9%) did not have data available. Among 1,302 men who had a prior primary care visit within our healthcare system, 414 (31.8%) had been seen within 1 year before their fertility evaluation. Men with an established PCP were slightly older than those without a PCP, with higher body mass index, and lower systolic blood pressure. Hormonal profiles were similar across groups, but men with an established PCP had a significantly higher total motile sperm count than those without a PCP, median 53 (interquartile range, 11-109) versus 35 (interquartile range, 8-98).
conclusionsMore than one third of men presenting for fertility evaluation did not have an established PCP. Reproductive urologists are uniquely positioned to facilitate the critical relationship between young men and PCPs, which should be a key component of the male fertility treatment paradigm.
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.