Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35978007›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2022

Spatiotemporal trends in human semen quality.

Jacques Auger, Florence Eustache, Cécile Chevrier, Bernard Jégou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Jacques AugerINSERM U1016-Equipe "Génomique, Epigénétique et Physiologie de la Reproduction", Institut Cochin, Université Paris Descartes-Paris, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4521-3363
Florence EustacheINSERM U1016-Equipe "Génomique, Epigénétique et Physiologie de la Reproduction", Institut Cochin, Université Paris Descartes-Paris, Paris, France.
Cécile ChevrierUniversité Rennes, INSERM, EHESP, IRSET-UMR_S 1085, Rennes, France. cecile.chevrier@inserm.fr.ORCID 0000-0003-3101-8222
Bernard JégouUniversité Rennes, INSERM, EHESP, IRSET-UMR_S 1085, Rennes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past four decades, studies of various designs have reported spatial and temporal trends in human semen quality. Several standardized-methodology studies in homogeneous populations that compare specific cities within a country or a continent provide clear evidence of geographical differences in sperm production, even over short distances within the same country. Human sperm production is widely believed to be declining over time, but evidence from the scientific literature is less clear. Studies based on repeated cross-sectional data from a single centre have shown mixed results. Among the numerous retrospective studies conducted in a single centre, only some included homogeneous groups of men and appropriate methods, and most of them suggest a temporal decrease in human sperm production in the geographical areas considered. Conclusions reporting temporal trends in sperm production that came from existing retrospective multicentre studies based on individual semen data and those using means, medians or estimates of sperm production are questionable, owing to intrinsic limitations in the studies performed. Regardless of study design, studies on the percentage of motile or morphologically normal spermatozoa are still limited by the inherent variability in assessment. Overall, available data do not enable us to conclude that human semen quality is deteriorating worldwide or in the Western world, but that a trend is observed in some specific areas. To understand these trends and contrasts in sperm and semen quality, prospective studies should be encouraged and combined with assessment of the male exposome.

Indexed as

SemenSemen AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMaleProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSpermatozoaSperm CountSperm Motility

Identifiers

PMID35978007
PMCPMC9383660

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.