ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2023
Trends in testosterone prescription amongst medical specialties: a 5-year CMS data analysis.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temporal trends in serum testosterone and luteinizing hormone levels indicate an ongoing resetting of hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal function in healthy men: a systematic review.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2025Pooled it
- Care of Patients with Male Hypogonadism: A Joint Position Statement from the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM), the Brazilian Society of Urology (SBU), and the Brazilian Association for Sexual Medicine and Health (ABEMSS).International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyGuideline
- Trial
- Article
- Trends in testosterone prescription during the release of society guidelines.International journal of impotence research · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Testosterone Therapy (TTh) trends have changed as a result of clinical research and market forces over the past several years. Understanding the trends or preferences regarding testosterone prescriptions remains unknown. Our objective was to assess both regional and national trends in TTh prescriptions amongst medical specialties within the United States between 2013 and 2017. Publicly available data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Part D Prescriber database with regards to TTh prescriptions across a 5-year span (January 1, 2013-December 31, 2017) were analyzed. TTh therapies were consolidated into four categories: Topical, Oral, Injection and Pellet. Statistical analysis utilizing R 4.0.2 was performed on the resulting data. Trends in prescription modality claim count and cost were plotted over the study period while statistical analysis evaluated associations between TTh modality and medical specialist. We found that Endocrinologists and Urologists prescribed topical testosterone more than all other specialties (60.4% and 53.5%, respectively), while Family and Internal medicine physicians were more likely to prescribe injections (59.82% and 50.69%, respectively). Oral and pellet testosterone were rarely prescribed across all specialties. In conclusion, the wide variation in modalities of testosterone prescriptions illustrates an opportunity for treatment guidelines to be streamlined across all specialists to improve patient outcomes.
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.