Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36959965›Full record

ArticleF&S reports2023

Sperm donor attitudes and experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Sascha Wodoslawsky, Joy Fatunbi, Rebecca Mercier, Andrea Mechanick Braverman

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in F&S reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reproductive Donors' Needs and Preferences: A Mixed-methods Systematic Review.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2025
    Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sascha WodoslawskySidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Joy FatunbiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Rebecca MercierDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Andrea Mechanick BravermanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Thomas Jefferson University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To identify factors influencing sperm donor willingness to participate in direct-to-consumer genetic testing, comfort with sharing genetically identifiable data in commercial genetic testing databases, and likelihood to donate sperm again. Design: Cross-sectional online anonymous survey. Setting: Multicenter, 2 large American sperm banks from July 1, 2020 to July10, 2021. Patients: Sperm donors from 1980 to 2020. Interventions: None. Main outcome measures: Associations between donor demographic characteristics, donation history, and attitudes toward direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Results: A total of 396 donors completed the survey. Most donations (61.5%) occurred from 2010 to 2020, and 34.3% were nonidentified donations. Nonidentified donors were less comfortable with their genetic data being shared than open-identity donors (25.4% vs. 43.8%) and were less likely than open-identity donors to donate sperm again (43.3% vs. 72.1%). Donors who donated after the inception of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in 2007 were less likely to participate in commercial genetic testing than those who donated before 2007 (25.8% vs. 37.1%). Most donors (87.4%) have disclosed their donation(s) to current partners, but fewer have disclosed them to their families (56.6%) or children (30.5%). Of the donors who had been contacted by donor-conceived persons, 79.5% were identified via direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Overall, 61.1% of donors would donate again regardless of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Conclusions: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing is playing a dynamic role in sperm donor identification, but donors seem willing to donate again. Implication counseling regarding future linkage and contact from donor-conceived persons needs to be standardized for potential donors before donation.

Indexed as

confidentialitydirect-to-consumer screening and testingDonor conceptionspermatozoasperm banks

Identifiers

PMID36959965
PMCPMC10028474
OpenAlexW4321793394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read59
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.