ArticleCureus2025
Male and Female Infertility in the Quest for Research Support and Public Health Interest: Analysis of Two Large Databases.
Article in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective The rate of infertility is increasing and affects males and females relatively equally. With the rise of infertility cases impacting both males and females, there will be an increased need for screening, diagnostic, and treatment modalities to meet the growing demand. However, it is unclear if disparities exist regarding research funding allocation and public interest. The purpose of this study is to compare research expenditure and public interest between male and female infertility. Methods The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER; duration: 1985-2022) and Google Trends (duration: 2004-2023) United States datasets were used to assess research support and public interest, respectively. Data were obtained from the NIH RePORTER, including grants identified by validated MeSH terms and verified with an in-depth review of the project title, abstract, aims, and public health relevance. Terms were searched separately and simultaneously in Google Trends, which provided relative search volume. To assess inferential statistics, Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were performed. Regarding Google Trends, the Wilcoxon test was used to assess changes in the relative search volume over time. Results A total of 589 grants were funded. In aggregate, female infertility had more research funding in total ($100,931,789 vs. $71,684,515). Moreover, female infertility had more funding per grant ($315,192 vs. $286,371; p < 0.0001) compared to male infertility. In Google Trends, the terms (separately) decreased by -38 points (p < 0.0001) for male infertility and -15 points (p = 0.9) for female infertility. When analyzed separately (median: 36 for male infertility vs. 34 for female infertility) and simultaneously (median: 35 for male infertility vs. 14.5 for female infertility), the term "male infertility" had significantly higher relative search volume than "female infertility" (p < 0.0001). Conclusion Disparities exist in research support and public interest in infertility, with more research support toward female infertility and public interest toward male infertility. Moreover, there was a significant decrease in public interest in male infertility, which could contribute to decreased awareness that could delay diagnosis and treatment. Further research should be devoted to identifying causes for the disparities in research funding allocation and public health interest observed in our study.
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.