ArticleF&S reports2020
Online access to male factor infertility care: the challenge of finding a specialist.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Male infertility: what on earth is going on? Pilot international questionnaire study regarding clinical evaluation and fertility treatment for men.Reproduction & fertility · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate internet search results available to couples searching for a male factor infertility specialist.
designCross-sectional.
settingOnline search engine. PATIENTS: The phrase "male infertility specialist <state>" was searched in Google for 50 states and Washington D.C. The top 10 results (i.e., first page) of each search were evaluated for website content.
interventionsNone.
main outcome measuresThe first page of each search was evaluated for provider type (urology vs. obstetrics and gynecology), level of training (fellowship vs. none), male factor fertility information provided, and procedures offered. We compared search position rank (1-10) to determine the likelihood of finding an urologist versus a practitioner in obstetrics and gynecology.
resultsA total of 419 results were identified; the majority were obstetrics and gynecology-related (N = 229, 54.7%). Urology-related results appeared higher than obstetrics and gynecology-related results (median, 4 vs. 5). Andrology fellowship-trained urologists were identified in 153 (36.5%) results. Among 229 obstetrics and gynecology results, 152 unique practices were identified. A small portion (N = 38, 16.6%) of these practices had a fellowship-trained urologist identified on the website. Most obstetrics and gynecology websites did not mention vasectomy reversal (N = 116, 76.3%) or varicocele repair (N = 93, 61.2%). A minority of practices offered referral to urologists for sperm extraction (N = 23, 15.1%) or offered sperm retrieval themselves (N = 23, 15.1%).
conclusionsWhen searching online for a male factor infertility specialist, most results identified obstetrics and gynecology physicians. A large proportion of obstetrics and gynecology websites lacked information on male factor fertility treatments and did not offer these treatments. These data indicate the need for a more robust online presence of male reproductive urologists to optimize online access.
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.