The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach
Open accessAbstract
Objective To estimate the prevalence of infertility using a current duration approach for comparison with a traditional constructed measure. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting National Survey of Family Growth, United States, 2002. Participants A nationally-representative sample of females aged 15–44 years. Interventions None Main Outcome Measure(s) Infertility prevalence estimated by two approaches: 1) a constructed measure derived from questions on sexual activity, contraception, relationship status, and pregnancy, and 2) a measure based on estimated time-to-pregnancy (TTP) derived from the respondents’ current duration of pregnancy attempt (i.e., current duration approach). Associations with self-reported descriptive characteristics using weighted logistic regression or parametric survival models for each respective approach. Results Infertility prevalence was approximately twofold higher using the current duration approach (15.5%; 95% CI: 8.6, 27.5) versus the constructed measure (7.0%; 95% CI: 6.2, 7.8). Both methods identified similar patterns of increasing age, lower education, nulliparity, and history of gynecologic disorders as being associated with measures of impaired fecundity, while opposing patterns were seen for racial/ethnic identification and poverty status. Conclusions Infertility prevalence based on a current duration approach was consistent with other U.S. prospective cohort studies with preconception enrollment. These findings underscore the importance of definition and methodologic approach for estimating the prevalence of infertility.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Martinez, G., & Daniels, K. (2023) · doi:10.15620/cdc:122080 · Cited by 330
Cited by
State-of-the-science of endocrine disrupting chemicals, 2012
Bergman, Å., Heindel, J., Jobling, S., Kidd, K., & Zoeller, R. T. (2012) · Toxicology Letters · doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2012.03.020 · Cited by 1,388
Cox, C. M., Thoma, M. E., Tchangalova, N., Mburu, G., Bornstein, M. J., Johnson, C. L., & Kiarie, J. (2022) · Human Reproduction Open · doi:10.1093/hropen/hoac051 · Cited by 506
Self-citationAgarwal, A., Parekh, N., Panner Selvam, M. K., Henkel, R., Shah, R., Homa, S. T., Ramasamy, R., Ko, E., Tremellen, K., Esteves, S., et al. (2019) · The World Journal of Men's Health · doi:10.5534/wjmh.190055 · Cited by 474
Male infertility as a window to health
Choy, J. T., & Eisenberg, M. L. (2018) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.08.015 · Cited by 331
Diet and men’s fertility: Does diet affect sperm quality?
Nassan, F. L., Chavarro, J. E., & Tanrikut, C. (2018) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.025 · Cited by 149
Metadata
- Authors
- Thoma, M. E., McLain, A. C., Louis, J. F., King, R. B., Trumble, A. C., Sundaram, R., & Buck Louis, G. M.
- Venue
- Fertility and Sterility
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-04
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1324-1331.e1
- ISSN
- 0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2048338212
- Cited by
- 738
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 41.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.037
- The paper
- Thoma, M. E., McLain, A. C., Louis, J. F., King, R. B., Trumble, A. C., Sundaram, R., & Buck Louis, G. M. (2013). Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertility and Sterility. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.037
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.