4.7 Article

Decline in semen quality among 30,636 young Chinese men from 2001 to 2015

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 107, Issue 1, Pages 83-+

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.035

Keywords

Chinese young men; semen parameters; semen quality

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University [2015zzts102]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To provide information of semen quality among young Chinese men in the past 15 years. Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Setting: Sperm bank. Patient(s): A total of 30,636 young adult men who applied to be sperm donors at the Hunan Province Human Sperm Bank of China in 2001-2015 were included in the study. Intervention(s): Physical examination and analysis of blood and semen samples. Main Outcome Measure(s): Semen parameters, such as semen volume, sperm concentration, total sperm count, progressively motile sperm count, sperm progressive motility, sperm morphology, and round cells. Result(s): Many of the semen parameters showed a decreasing trend over the 15-year observation period. The sperm concentration and percentage of sperm with normal morphology decreased from 68 x 10(6)/mL to 47 x 10(6)/mL and from 31.8% to 10.8%, respectively. Although sperm progressive motility showed irregular variation, the progressively motile sperm count decreased from 34 x 10(6) to 21 x 10(6) over the 15-year period. Furthermore, the rate of qualified donors fell from 55.78% in 2001 to 17.80% in 2015, and the rate for 2015 was approximately threefold lower than the corresponding rates in 2001. Conclusion(s): The semen quality among young Chinese men has declined over a period of 15 years, especially in terms of sperm concentration, total sperm count, sperm progressive motility, and normal morphology. (C) 2016 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available