ArticleF&S reports2021
Evaluation of patient compliance with the use of scrotal cooling devices.
Article in F&S reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Root Cause Approach to Men's Hormone Health Using Specific Maca Phenotypes: A Narrative Review.Integrative medicine (Encinitas, Calif.) · 2026Article
- Male Infertility: A Comprehensive Review of Urological Causes and Contemporary Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the compliance of infertile men with the use of scrotal cooling devices. As a secondary objective, sperm parameters, deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation, and hormone profiles were examined.
designThis exploratory study on scrotal cooling provided scrotal cooling devices to men with primary infertility and abnormal semen parameters. Feedback on the devices after their use was gathered in the form of a questionnaire, and semen parameters were examined after device use.
settingSingle center infertility clinic in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Patients with primary infertility and abnormal semen parameters were prospectively evaluated before and after scrotal cooling.
interventionsOne of two scrotal cooling devices (Underdog or Snowballs) was used, on the basis of patient preference.
main outcome measuresQuestionnaires were completed by patients on compliance with device use and concerns about and recommendations for improving the cooling devices. Baseline deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation index, sperm parameters, and hormones were measured at the initial visit (t = 0) and at subsequent visits (t = 4-12 weeks). Statistical comparison of values before and after scrotal cooling was performed.
resultsForty patients were enrolled in the study, and the questionnaire was completed by 65.0% (n = 26). Most respondents (76.9%) used scrotal cooling less than the recommended duration. Respondents believed that the devices were uncomfortable (31.5%), impeded work (21.0%), and lost cooling rapidly (14.3%). Significant increases in sperm motility and vitality (from 25.4 % to 29.0% and from 64.8% to 71.7%, respectively) were demonstrated after scrotal cooling.
conclusionsMost patients were not compliant with the recommended use of the scrotal cooling devices because of issues of comfort, convenience, and concealability. Further work on improving scrotal cooling devices is necessary to enhance their potential as a therapeutic tool for men with abnormal sperm parameters and infertility.
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.