ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2026
Alternatives to serum testing for transdermal testosterone monitoring: a review of clinical data and correlation with clinical response.
Article in Frontiers in reproductive health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Blood (serum) testing is the standard method for monitoring testosterone (T) replacement therapy (TRT). Nevertheless, alternative methods, such as saliva testing, are gaining popularity because of their practical advantages. Objective: This review aims to offer evidence-based, clinically relevant information to enable healthcare providers to make rational decisions regarding management of TRT. Providers need to know which combinations of ROA (route of administration) and testing method best track and reflect dosing and clinical outcomes. To that end, we summarize the large body of evidence for serum T testing during transdermal (TD) TRT monitoring, as well as the smaller body of evidence for saliva T testing in the context of TRT. Also discussed is T testing via capillary dried bloodspot (DBS) and urine. We chose to focus on TD formulations (gels, creams) because they are well-studied and commonly prescribed. Methods: We conducted a literature search using online databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar) and also reviewed real-world evidence available from large commercial laboratory databases. The clinical interpretation of these findings are discussed with regard to which tests best reflect clinical reality. Results: Studies consistently show that serum T values increase proportionally with TD TRT dosing and strongly correlate with clinical responses. Use of serum testing for TD TRT monitoring is supported by published clinical guidelines. Endogenous saliva T levels at baseline are usually consistent with corresponding serum measures of T (when using accurate saliva steroid assays). However, this consistency is no longer observed when exogenous TD T is used. Evidence showed that saliva T values are routinely supraphysiological with standard TD TRT doses. These elevations in saliva are not known to be consistent with any clinical parameters. Like saliva, DBS T also often shows supraphysiologic responses to TD TRT, without clinical significance. Urine T levels tend to parallel serum T responses to TD TRT but may not be as reliable as serum, especially in people with Conclusions: Based on the evidence, we conclude that:
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.