2291 TESTOSTERONE PRESCRIBING PATTERNS IN THE MALE INFERTILITY POPULATION
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyInfertility: Evaluation1 Apr 20132291 TESTOSTERONE PRESCRIBING PATTERNS IN THE MALE INFERTILITY POPULATION Mary Samplaski, Yasir Loai, Kirk Lo, Ethan Grober, and Keith Jarvi Mary SamplaskiMary Samplaski Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , Yasir LoaiYasir Loai Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , Kirk LoKirk Lo Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , Ethan GroberEthan Grober Toronto, Canada More articles by this author , and Keith JarviKeith Jarvi Toronto, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.2232AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Over the last decade there has been a gradual increase in testosterone (T) prescribing. We sought to analyze patterns of T prescribing in men presenting for infertility evaluation. METHODS Men presenting for fertility evaluation from 2008-2012 on T were identified via a prospective database. Data were analyzed for prevalence, prescriber, formulation, dosage and indication. RESULTS 4400 men were evaluated for male infertility, and 56 (1.3%) were on T at presentation. Prescribers included: Endocrinologists (10, 17.9%), General Practitioners (5, 8.9%), Urologists (3, 5.3%), and independently obtained (4, 7.1%). Formulations and dosages included: Gel (26, 46.4%): most commonly 5mg every other day (QOD), range: 5mg QOD to 10mg daily; Intramuscular injection (25, 44.6%), most commonly 200mg every 2 weeks, range: 50-300mg every 2 weeks; Oral (1, 1.8%), 80mg QOD; Pellet (1, 1.7%), dose unknown; and unknown formulation and dose (5, 8.9%). Indications for T included: symptoms of hypogonadism (27, 48.2%), symptoms + low serum T (21, 37.5%), low serum T (4, 7.1%), athletic purposes (3, 5.4%), and subfertility (1, 1.8%). Co-existing conditions included: Klinefelters syndrome (8, 14.3%), history of bilateral undescended testicles (7, 12.5%), Kallmans syndrome (5, 8.9%), Sertoli only syndrome (2, 3.6%), chemotherapy induced testicular failure (2, 3.6%), prolactinoma (2, 3.6%), anejaculation (1, 1.8%), and opioid induced testicular failure (1, 1.8%). CONCLUSIONS At our infertility center, T was not commonly used by men presenting for infertility investigation. Most men on T were being treated for appropriate conditions, with appropriate routes and dosages. Endocrinologists and General Practitioners were the most common prescribers, and educational efforts to emphasize the negative impacts of T on spermatogenesis should be focused on these groups. There are a group of men that obtain their T independently, and a group that uses T for athletic purposes. While this was a small fraction of the men in our population of infertile men, as the use of T increases, this fraction will undoubtedly grow. © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e939 Peer Review Report Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Mary Samplaski Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Yasir Loai Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Kirk Lo Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Ethan Grober Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Keith Jarvi Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».