Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40155486›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2025

Post-vasectomy semen analysis: what is the best protocol?

Ellen M Cahill, Maximilian J Rabil, Katherine Rotker, Stanton C Honig

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Vasectomy revisited: Safe procedure in a changing reproductive landscape.International journal of impotence research · 2026
    Article
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.

Ellen M CahillDepartment of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0459-534X
Maximilian J RabilDepartment of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Katherine RotkerDepartment of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Stanton C HonigDepartment of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. Stanton.honig@yale.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vasectomy is a safe, quick, and highly effective form of permanent sterilization. However, vasectomy does not render patients sterile immediately, and they must continue to use alternate forms of contraception until cleared by a post-vasectomy semen analysis (PVSA). Historically, the criteria for post-vasectomy clearance have varied widely amongst providers, with most physicians requiring azoospermia in order to consider vasectomy a success. The 2012 American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines expanded the definition of post-vasectomy clearance to include ≤100,000 non-motile sperm (NMS). This has decreased the need for subsequent semen analyses and increased initial clearance rates. Despite this, patient compliance with PVSA has been poor, which has led to research focused on factors associated with compliance and interventions to enhance PVSA completion. There are many factors that affect patient compliance. Mail-in and at-home PVSA have the potential to increase compliance due to inherent convenience and less patient embarrassment. While no currently at-home test fulfills the AUA guidelines on post-vasectomy clearance, mail-in testing can be utilized to clear patients on the basis of azoospermia alone. Future research should focus on continued strategies to enhance PVSA compliance as well as explore patient preferences and alternative options.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.