ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2024
Vasectomy incidence in the military health system after the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vasectomy in the absence of paternity A pre- and post-pandemic Canadian cohort analysis.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Article
- Vasectomy at a crossroads: utilization, equity, and clinical practice in a changing reproductive landscape.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Vasectomy revisited: Safe procedure in a changing reproductive landscape.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Article
- Unexpected profiles in vasectomy demand during a national campaign in Bolivia: cross-sectional study and associations in age, number of children, and motivations for seeking vasectomy.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2026Article
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs decision) has already had profound impact on reproductive health care in the United States. Some studies have reported increased incidence of vasectomy after the Dobbs decision. The Military Health System (MHS) provides a unique opportunity to evaluate this relationship in a universally insured, geographically representative population. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of vasectomies among all male beneficiaries in the MHS, ages 18 to 64, from 2018 to 2022. Beneficiaries receiving a vasectomy were identified via billing data extraction from the MHS Data Repository (MDR). Descriptive statistics of demographic factors of all those receiving a vasectomy in the study period were evaluated. Crude and multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate for differences in demographic variables in those receiving a vasectomy pre-Dobb's decision as compared to after the Dobb's decision. The total number of men receiving a vasectomy each month over the study period was analyzed, as were the numbers in a state immediately implementing abortion access restrictions (Texas), and one without any restrictions on abortion access (Virginia). Our analysis found that men receiving a vasectomy post-Dobbs decision were more likely to be younger, unmarried, and of junior military rank than prior to the Dobbs decision. In the months following the Dobbs decision in 2022 (June-December), there was a 22.1% increase in vasectomy utilization as compared to the averages of those months in 2018-2021. Further, it was found that the relative increase in vasectomy after the Dobbs decision was greater in Texas (29.3%) compared to Virginia (10.6%). Our findings highlight the impact of the Dobbs decision on reproductive health care utilization outside of abortion.
Identifiers
38762601What 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.