ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2025
Adherence to american urological association (AUA) vasectomy guidelines: a systematic review of current practice among healthcare providers.
Review in International journal of impotence research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vasectomy, a common male sterilization procedure, has seen a surge in popularity following the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade. The American Urological Association (AUA) vasectomy guidelines provide essential guidance for providers, outlining best practices for the procedure. We reviewed studies that examined adherence to the AUA vasectomy guidelines with regard to pre-procedure counseling, surgical technique, and post vasectomy semen analysis (PVSA) practice, as well as studies evaluating the impact of these guidelines on urology and non-urology practices. A total of five studies were identified that assessed adherence to the guidelines. Only one of these studies evaluated adherence to all three aspects of the guidelines. The remaining four studies focused solely on the practice of PVSA. Overall, urologists exhibited greater adherence to the guidelines compared to other healthcare providers. However, the adherence rates were still suboptimal. Five additional studies were included that evaluated the use of home-based PVSA, which is not part of the AUA guidelines. Conflicting results were found regarding the test compliance. While the studies evaluating home-based PVSA may raise the question of including this approach in the guidelines panel discussion, it is important to consider the potential benefits and drawbacks before incorporating it as an option in future guidelines.
Identifiers
39893250What 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.