Dataset Information

Post-Vasectomy Semen Analysis: Optimizing Laboratory Procedures and Test Interpretation through a Clinical Audit and Global Survey of Practices.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The success of vasectomy is determined by the outcome of a post-vasectomy semen analysis (PVSA). This article describes a step-by-step procedure to perform PVSA accurately, report data from patients who underwent post vasectomy semen analysis between 2015 and 2021 experience, along with results from an international online survey on clinical practice.

Materials and methods

We present a detailed step-by-step protocol for performing and interpretating PVSA testing, along with recommendations for proficiency testing, competency assessment for performing PVSA, and clinical and laboratory scenarios. Moreover, we conducted an analysis of 1,114 PVSA performed at the Cleveland Clinic's Andrology Laboratory and an online survey to understand clinician responses to the PVSA results in various countries.

Results

Results from our clinical experience showed that 92.1% of patients passed PVSA, with 7.9% being further tested. A total of 78 experts from 19 countries participated in the survey, and the majority reported to use time from vasectomy rather than the number of ejaculations as criterion to request PVSA. A high percentage of responders reported permitting unprotected intercourse only if PVSA samples show azoospermia while, in the presence of few non-motile sperm, the majority of responders suggested using alternative contraception, followed by another PVSA. In the presence of motile sperm, the majority of participants asked for further PVSA testing. Repeat vasectomy was mainly recommended if motile sperm were observed after multiple PVSA's. A large percentage reported to recommend a second PVSA due to the possibility of legal actions.

Conclusions

Our results highlighted varying clinical practices around the globe, with controversy over the significance of non-motile sperm in the PVSA sample. Our data suggest that less stringent AUA guidelines would help improve test compliance. A large longitudinal multi-center study would clarify various doubts related to timing and interpretation of PVSA and would also help us to understand, and perhaps predict, recanalization and the potential for future failure of a vasectomy.

SUBMITTER: Agarwal A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9253792 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLaboratory tests and transfusions are sometimes ordered inappropriately, particularly in the critical care setting, which sees frequent use of both. Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a potentially useful intervention for modifying healthcare provider behaviors, but its application to the complex, team-based environment of critical care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on A&F interventions for improving test or transfusion ordering in the critical care setting.MethodsFive databases, two registries, and the bibliographies of relevant articles were searched. We included critical care studies that assessed the use of A&F targeting healthcare provider behaviors, alone or in combination with other interventions to improve test and transfusion ordering, as compared to historical practice, no intervention, or another healthcare behaviour change intervention. Studies were included only if they reported laboratory test or transfusion orders, or the appropriateness of orders, as outcomes. There were no restrictions based on study design, date of publication, or follow-up time. Intervention characteristics and absolute differences in outcomes were summarized. The quality of individual studies was assessed using a modified version of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Cochrane Review Group's criteria.ResultsWe identified 16 studies, including 13 uncontrolled before-after studies, one randomized controlled trial, one controlled before-after study, and one controlled clinical trial (quasi-experimental). These studies described 17 interventions, mostly (88%) multifaceted interventions with an A&F component. Feedback was most often provided in a written format only (41%), more than once (53%), and most often only provided data aggregated to the group-level (41%). Most studies saw a change in the hypothesized direction, but not all studies provided statistical analyses to formally test improvement. Overall study quality was low, with studies often lacking a concurrent control group.ConclusionsOur review summarizes characteristics of A&F interventions implemented in the critical care context, points to some mechanisms by which A&F might be made more effective in this setting, and provides an overview of how the appropriateness of orders was reported. Our findings suggest that A&F can be effective in the context of critical care; however, further research is required to characterize approaches that optimize the effectiveness in this setting alongside more rigorous evaluation methods.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016051941.

Project description:A field experiment, using a paired audit testing design with testers of different racial and language profiles, was conducted to document and evaluate individual encounters in inquiring about COVID-19 vaccinations in the U.S. states. Testers communicated with state health department and major vaccination site staff about obtaining the COVID-19 vaccine and assessed the extent to which evidence-informed communication tactics for encouraging take-up were employed. The audit testers included individuals representing Latinx identities, given research showing they face greater hardships in navigating vaccine infrastructure and place less trust in public immunization efforts. Data were collected in phone and electronic communications between mid-June and mid-August of 2021. Empirical analyses confirmed that states vary considerably in how clearly officials communicate vaccination requirements and procedures, and in what they ask of individuals before providing the opportunity to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The Spanish-speaking tester was more likely to encounter negative or racialized language-primarily implicit in nature-such as calls abruptly ended (vs. attempting to secure language support) and requests for additional identification or personal information before continuing with vaccination registration. Examples of overtly negative or racist encounters included condescending comments about Latinx testers' identification (or perceived undocumented status) and the Spanish-speaking tester's communication in Spanish. Analysis of an index of good practices constructed from the audit data revealed that very few strategies for promoting vaccinations were regularly implemented. In regression analyses, an additional point on the good practices index predicted a 0.133 percentage point increase in the percent of the population receiving the first vaccine dose, suggesting the lack of implementation of these good practices may represent a missed opportunity to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates. We identified exemplars in the communications that the federal government could disseminate to rapidly improve state practices and the accessibility of accurate information on COVID-19 vaccination opportunities.

Project description:BackgroundWe have shown previously that current recommendations in UK guidelines for monitoring long-term conditions are largely based on expert opinion. Due to a lack of robust evidence on optimal monitoring strategies and testing intervals, the guidelines are unclear and incomplete. This uncertainty may underly variation in testing that has been observed across the UK between GP practices and regions.MethodsOur objective was to audit current testing practices of GPs in the UK; in particular, perspectives on laboratory tests for monitoring long-term conditions, the workload, and how confident GPs are in ordering and interpreting these tests. We designed an online survey consisting of multiple-choice and open-ended questions that was promoted on social media and in newsletters targeting GPs practicing in UK. The survey was live between October-November 2019. The results were analysed using a mixed-methods approach.ResultsThe survey was completed by 550 GPs, of whom 69% had more than 10 years of experience. The majority spent more than 30 min per day on testing (78%), but only half of the respondents felt confident in dealing with abnormal results (53%). There was a high level of disagreement for whether liver function tests and full blood counts should be done 'routinely', 'sometimes', or 'never' in patients with a certain long-term condition. The free text comments revealed three common themes: (1) pressures that promote over-testing, i.e. guidelines or protocols, workload from secondary care, fear of missing something, patient expectations; (2) negative consequences of over-testing, i.e. increased workload and patient harm; and (3) uncertainties due to lack of evidence and unclear guidelines.ConclusionThese results confirm the variation that has been observed in test ordering data. The results also show that most GPs spent a significant part of their day ordering and interpreting monitoring tests. The lack of confidence in knowing how to act on abnormal test results underlines the urgent need for robust evidence on optimal testing and the development of clear and unambiguous testing recommendations. Uncertainties surrounding optimal testing has resulted in an over-use of tests, which leads to a waste of resources, increased GP workload and potential patient harm.