ReviewBasic and clinical andrology2025
Social Media and Men's Health: Separating Science from Speculation in Andrology.
Review in Basic and clinical andrology, 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.
- Trust in Digital Sexual Health Information Among Chinese College Students: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
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
backgroundSocial media has rapidly evolved into a primary source of health-related information. For men with concerns regarding their sexual health or fertility, consulting the internet is often felt to be an accessible first-step in exploring their symptoms. Medical misinformation and over-generalisation online remain a significant concern amongst medical professionals, particularly in the current social media era of virality and sensationalism. This narrative review aims to explore the growing intersection between social media and andrology, with insights into the current medical media landscape and the opportunity to enhance health promotion.
methodsThe search strategy applied core search terms central to the scope of the review (such as "social media" and "andrology") in combination with condition-specific terms (such as "erectile dysfunction" or "testosterone") using Boolean operators to identify relevant literature within PubMed, which served as the primary electronic database, as well as online websites and social media platforms.
resultsSocial media consumption is on the rise, with users consuming over two hours daily on average worldwide. Amongst posts, there has been a shift towards highly engaging short-form video content, which is particularly popular with young adults. Social media algorithms reinforce consumption patterns by continuously delivering content based on user engagement: the more an individual interacts with a topic or creator, the more related content appears, creating a self-sustaining feedback loop; this principle underpins the concept of virality and risks the rapid dissemination of inaccuracies online. Key men's health topics such as infertility, erectile dysfunction, testosterone supplementation and semen retention are popular amongst social media posts, amassing millions-to-billions of views depending on the platform. Amongst these posts, there is a high degree of misinformation. Clinicians should be confident in navigating the possible challenges associated with social media.
conclusionWhilst the growing presence of urologists online may have the potential to counter health-related misinformation, there are barriers inherent to social media platforms that limit the reach and impact of expert voices at present. To leverage the opportunity that social media offers, urologists are required to modernise their approach to communication in order to ensure that accurate health information is both accessible and engaging.
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.