CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 546Reproductive Health and TechnologiesOvarian function and disordersReproductive Biology and Fertility

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 138 of the 139 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The impact of lifestyle factors on reproductive performance in the general population and those undergoing infertility treatment: a review

Homan, G.F., Davies, M., Norman, R.·2007·Human Reproduction Update
DOI 10.1093/humupd/dml056
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This evidence-based review focuses on the impact of potentially modifiable, non-communicable lifestyle factors on reproductive performance in the general population and the infertile population undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. The impact of several lifestyle factors including; age, weight, smoking, diet, exercise, psychological stress, caffeine consumption, alcohol consumption and exposure to environmental pollutants are included in the review. The databases of Medline, PubMed and Cinahl were searched to identify relevant publications. There is strong evidence that age, weight and smoking impact on general health and adversely on reproductive performance. However there is a need for further research focusing specifically on the relationship between diet and various levels of exercise on reproductive performance. There are several other factors such as psychological stress, caffeine consumption, alcohol consumption and exposure to environmental pollutants that have been implicated but the evidence is equivocal. It is concluded that lifestyle modification can assist couples to conceive spontaneously or optimize their chances of conception with ART treatment.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humupd/dml056

Cites

138 of 138 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 139 references

1 of the 139 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–544 of 544

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Homan, G. F., Davies, M., & Norman, R.
Affiliations
The University of Adelaide (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Human Reproduction Update
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2007-01-05
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
209-223
ISSN
  • 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2369
DOI
10.1093/humupd/dml056
OpenAlex
W2108216951
Cited by
546
References
139
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 32
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction Update (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
Keywords
lifestyle factors, reproductive performance, infertility, assisted reproduction, age, body weight, smoking, diet, physical activity, psychological stress, caffeine consumption, alcohol consumption, environmental pollutants, lifestyle modification, conception
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Infertility, Female, Life Style, Risk Factors, 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