ArticleFertility and sterility2022
Reproductive urologic consultation in subfertile men: predictors of establishing care and patient perceptions after abnormal semen testing.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Test Offer to Urologic Follow-up: Acceptability of Semen Analysis in Male Infertility and Preconception Care.Cureus · 2026Review
- Incidence and risk factors of low testosterone in infertile men with normal sperm concentration.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Microsurgical Management of Male Infertility: Compelling Evidence That Collaboration with Qualified Male Reproductive Urologists Enhances Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Evolution of the World Health Organization semen analysis manual: where are we?Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the predictors of establishing care with a reproductive urologist (RU) among men with abnormal semen analyses (SAs) ordered by nonurologists and examine patient perceptions of abnormal SAs in the absence of RU consultation.
designRetrospective cohort study with cross-sectional survey.
settingLarge, integrated academic healthcare system during 2002-2019. PATIENT(S): We identified adult men undergoing initial SAs with nonurologists who had abnormalities. Patients with index SAs during 2002-2018 were included for the analysis of RU consultation. Men tested in 2019 were recruited for cross-sectional survey. INTERVENTION(S): Cross-sectional survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): RU consultation and accurate perception of abnormal SAs. RESULT(S): A total of 2,283 men had abnormal SAs ordered by nonurologists, among whom 20.5% underwent RU consultation. Mixed-effect logistic regression modeling identified oligospermia as the strongest predictor of RU care (odds ratio, 3.08; 95% confidence interval, 2.43-3.90) with a significant provider-level random intercept. We observed substantial provider-level heterogeneity among nonurologists with provider-specific rates of RU evaluation ranging from 3.7% to 35.8%. We contacted 310 men who did not undergo RU consultation with a 27.2% survey response rate. Of respondents, 6.7% reported receiving an RU referral. Among men with abnormal SAs not evaluated by RU, 22.7% appropriately perceived an abnormal SA. CONCLUSION(S): In men with abnormal SAs diagnosed by nonurologists, the rate of RU consultation was low and associated with substantial provider-level variation among ordering providers. Patients without RU consultation reported inaccurate perceptions of their SA. Multidisciplinary efforts are needed to ensure that subfertile men receive appropriate RU evaluation.
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.