ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
The emotions, concerns and reactions of sperm donor candidates to their rejection by a sperm bank.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore the emotions, concerns and reactions of sperm donor candidates to their rejection by the sperm bank.
methodsAn online questionnaire was administered at Cryos International in the USA and Denmark to sperm donor candidates who had received notification that they were ineligible to donate.
resultsA total of 101 rejected donor candidates completed the questionnaire. The majority were disappointed and surprised by the rejection but only a relatively small group had concerns about their health, fertility or manhood. More than half of them (54.5%) were satisfied with the way they were informed of their ineligibility while 17.8% were neutral, and 27.7% were dissatisfied. Approximately half (47.5%) thought that the information provided to them was sufficient while 24.8% were neutral and one in four (27.8%) considered it as insufficient. The most frequent suggestions for improvement were to provide an information leaflet specific to the reason of rejection, offer personal counselling and explain better what the implications are for them.
conclusionThere is room for improvement in the information provided to donor candidates about the reason for their rejection. Although some information is already currently provided, a minority of donor candidates considered this to be insufficient. However, rejected candidates do not request more information on their own initiative. Routine provision of an information sheet specific to each reason for rejection may improve the experience of these men.
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.