Cigarette smoking and sperm density: a meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Objective To quantify, through meta-analysis techniques, the association between cigarette smoking and sperm density. Methods The logarithm of the ratio of mean sperm density for smokers to that for nonsmokers for the studies included in this meta-analysis was regressed against a constant, an indicator of study population source (infertility clinic patients or normal men), minimum number of cigarettes smoked per day among smokers ( or = 10), exclusion of azoospermic men (yes/no), number of semen specimens analyzed (one versus two), and blinding of laboratory personnel to the smoking status of the study participants (yes/no). Regression analyses were performed both unweighted and weighted inversely by study size. A qualitative and quantitative assessment of the relationship between the numbers of cigarettes smoked per day and sperm density was performed. Results Results of the meta-analysis indicate that smokers' sperm density is on average 13% to 17% (95% confidence interval = 8.0, 21.5) lower than that of nonsmokers. No other factors besides cigarette smoking were found to be independent predictors of sperm density. No clear dose-response relationships between the numbers of cigarettes smoked per day and sperm density emerged. Research conducted by the authors supports the findings of the meta-analysis. Conclusion Cigarette smoking is associated with lowered sperm density. The inconsistency in the literature with regard to this conclusion appears to be the result of small sa…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The study's sample size calculation determined a minimum required sample size of 44 participants.
“Using a significance level of 0.05 and a type II error of 20% (power = 80%), the minimum required sample size was determined to be 44 participants.”
From Evaluating the effect of smoking and its cessation on semen parameters (2025) · cites this paper as Vine et al. (1994)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evaluating the effect of smoking and its cessation on semen parameters
Ragheb, A., Abdelbary, A., Massoud, A., Abd Elkhalek, M., & Elbatanony, A. (2025) · Reproduction and Fertility · doi:10.1530/raf-24-0135 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Adashi, E. Y., Vine, M. F., Margolin, B. H., Morrison, H. I., & Hulka, B. S.
- Affiliations
- American Society for Reproductive Medicine (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Venue
- Fertility and Sterility
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1994-01
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-43
- ISSN
- 0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W179283358
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 2.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Sperm and Testicular Function
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
- Keywords
- cigarette smoking, sperm concentration, male infertility, semen quality, tobacco use, dose-response relationship, azoospermia
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Humans, Male, Regression Analysis, Smoking, Sperm Count
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