Cited by 510Reproductive Health and TechnologiesSmoking Behavior and CessationReproductive Biology and Fertility

Smoking and female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Augood, C., Duckitt, K., Templeton, A. A.·1998·Human Reproduction

Abstract

The high prevalence of smoking among women in their reproductive years continues to be a matter of concern. The negative effects of smoking on general health are well known, but smoking may also affect fertility. The objective of the present study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to determine whether there is an association between smoking and risk of infertility in women of reproductive age, and to assess the size of this effect. In the 12 studies used for this meta-analysis, the overall value of the odds ratio (OR) for risk of infertility in women smokers versus non-smokers was 1.60 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34-1.91]. Studies of subfertile women undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment also show a reduction in fecundity among women smokers. A meta-analysis of nine studies found an OR of 0.66 (95% CI 0.49-0.88) for pregnancies per number of IVF-treated cycles in smokers versus non-smokers. Despite the potential limitations of meta-analyses of observational studies, the evidence presented in this review is compelling because of the consistency of effect across different study designs, sample size and types of outcome. However, continued reassurance is needed that the calculated overall effect is not in fact due to confounding variables.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/13.6.1532

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Active and passive tobacco smoking is associated with lower fertility and reduced chance of a healthy live birth in the general population and in couples with infertility.

    “Analysis of the literature indicates that active and passive (second-hand) smoking of tobacco is associated with decreased fertility and reduced chance of a healthy, live birth both in the general population and among couples with infertility (Augood 1998, Hyland 2016, Practice Committee 2018, Radin 2014, Sharma 2016, Waylen 2008).”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Augood 1998

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Augood, C., Duckitt, K., & Templeton, A. A.
Affiliations
  • Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (GB)
  • Aberdeen Maternity Hospital (GB)
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
1998-06-01
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
1532-1539
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2169182570
Cited by
510
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 22
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
Keywords
smoking, female infertility, female fertility, in vitro fertilization, fecundity, subfertility, women of reproductive age, confounding
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Infertility, Female, Risk Factors, Smoking

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