Cited by 202Sperm and Testicular FunctionSmoking Behavior and CessationReproductive Health and Technologies

Cigarette smoking and sperm density: a meta-analysis

Open access
Adashi, Eli Y., Vine, Marilyn F., Margolin, Barry H., Morrison, Howard I., Hulka, Barbara S.·1994·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56450-4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

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
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