Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41680575›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2026

Cost Considerations of Direct to Consumer Infertility Testing and Sperm Cryopreservation.

Andrew Shin, Martin Kathrins

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Andrew ShinHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Martin KathrinsDivision of Benign Urology, Department of Urology, Mass General Brigham, Boston, MA, USA. mkathrins@bwh.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewMale fertility evaluation is increasingly shifting outside traditional clinics as direct-to-consumer (DTC) semen testing and cryopreservation services expand. This review synthesizes current evidence on the accuracy, clinical utility, and cost implications of DTC products and evaluates their role alongside guideline-based care. RECENT

findingsSmartphone-based platforms and other DTC products show strong performance for screening sperm concentration and motility, and mail-in cryopreservation allows access to laboratory analysis from home. However, most DTC tests do not replicate the diagnostic scope of clinical semen analysis and often require confirmatory evaluation. Costs vary widely across platforms, with inconsistent transparency and hidden fees noted in both DTC and traditional models. Early evidence also shows that DTC services disproportionately serve affluent users, despite potential to improve access for underserved populations. DTC semen analysis and cryopreservation can enhance convenience and early engagement but should complement rather than replace standard evaluation. Their utility depends on clinical context and cost-to-value considerations. We outline principles to guide clinicians in integrating DTC results into counseling and care while addressing issues of equity, transparency, and appropriate follow-up.

Indexed as

CryopreservationDirect-To-Consumer Screening and TestingInfertility, MaleSemen AnalysisSemen PreservationHumansMale

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.