Cited by 56Reproductive Health and TechnologiesAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyReproductive Biology and Fertility

Caffeine, alcohol, smoking, and reproductive outcomes among couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatments

Open access
Mínguez-Alarcón, Lidia, Chavarro, Jorge E., Gaskins, Audrey J.·2018·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

During the past decade, as the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) has continued to increase worldwide, research investigating whether modifiable lifestyle factors, such as alcohol, caffeine, and smoking, may affect ART outcomes has grown. Despite the vast literature, there is still uncertainty regarding the effects of some of these exposures on ART outcomes. The objective of this review is to summarize the epidemiologic literature on intakes of caffeine and alcohol, smoking, and reproductive outcomes among women undergoing ART. Of the five epidemiologic studies on caffeine intake and ART outcomes, only one found a significant negative effect of caffeine intake on live birth following ART. There have been six epidemiologic studies exploring whether alcohol intake is associated with fertility outcomes among women undergoing ART. Three studies assessed current alcohol consumption and observed a negative effect on outcomes such as fertilization, embryo quality, and implantation. When alcohol intake in the year before treatment was assessed, no relationships were observed with clinical outcomes following ART. Finally, numerous epidemiologic studies and a handful of meta-analyses have confirmed that female current smokers have worse ART outcomes compared with nonsmokers. Although former smokers tend to have better ART outcomes than current smokers, very few individual studies have investigated the influence of smoking cessation on ART outcomes. Literature on male smoking, drinking, and caffeine habits in relation to ART outcomes is even sparser and inconsistent, making it difficult to draw strong conclusions on that topic. In summary, there is little evidence supporting a detrimental effect of moderate caffeine intake on ART outcomes. Current consumption of alcohol may have a negative effect on ART outcomes, but at present the evidence is limited. Women who currently smoke cigarettes have been consistently found to have poorer ART outcomes, including reduced live birth rates, but a quantification of the benefits of smoking cessation is lacking.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.026

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Smoking reduces the success of fertility treatments such as IVF and ICSI.

    “Moreover, evidence shows that smoking reduces the success of fertility treatments such as IVF and ICSI (Klonoff-Cohen 2005, Mínguez-Alarcón 2018, Practice Committee 2018, Waylen 2008).”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Mínguez-Alarcón 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [39]Grodstein F, Goldman MB, Cramer DW. Infertility in women and moderate alcohol use. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 1429– 32. 8092366 PMC1615168

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mínguez-Alarcón, L., Chavarro, J. E., & Gaskins, A. J.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Gaskins, Audrey J.
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
110
Issue
4
Pages
587-592
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2890438936
Cited by
56
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4
FWCI
0.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P30DK046200)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
Keywords
assisted reproduction, caffeine consumption, alcohol consumption, smoking, reproductive outcomes, live birth, embryo quality, implantation, fertilisation (biology), smoking cessation, lifestyle factors, couples
MeSH terms
Tobacco Smoking, Alcohol Drinking, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Caffeine, Female, Humans, Male, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Reproductive Techniques, Assisted

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