ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2026
[Male contraception-scientific foundations and contemporary progress].
Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite decades of assiduous inquiry and burgeoning societal demand, contraceptive options for men remain circumscribed. Women have benefitted from highly efficacious hormonal modalities, but the burden of contraceptive responsibility continues to rest almost exclusively upon them. In light of the potential sequelae of female hormonal agents and the inviolable right to bodily autonomy, the quest for safe, reversible male methods is assuming urgency.Hormonal contraception for men relies on suppression of spermatogenesis through exogenous testosterone combined with progestins. Multicenter trials employing testosterone undecanoate with norethisterone enanthate demonstrated contraceptive efficacy commensurate with oral contraceptives in women. Nonetheless, adverse sequelae-including diminished libido, dysphoric mood, and weight accrual-precipitated discontinuation of the WHO-led trial. Recent transdermal combinations (testosterone with nestorone) and novel oral androgens have exhibited encouraging tolerability.Concurrently, non-hormonal paradigms are garnering momentum. Retinoic acid receptor‑α antagonists such as YCT-529 disrupt spermatogenic differentiation, while inhibitors of soluble adenylyl cyclase transiently impair sperm motility, enabling on-demand, pharmacological fertility control. Both strategies have proven efficacious, reversible, and well tolerated in preclinical investigations; notably, YCT-529 has advanced into human trials.At present, the vanguard of innovation lies with academic consortia and philanthropic institutions rather than industry. Although a market-ready preparation remains elusive, the progress in both hormonal and non-hormonal avenues underscores the profound potential for a more equitable apportionment of contraceptive responsibility.
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.