4.4 Article

Racial and Sociodemographic Differences of Semen Parameters Among US Men Undergoing a Semen Analysis

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 123, 期 -, 页码 126-132

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.09.029

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union, Interreg VOKS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To characterize sociodemographic differences in semen parameters among US men undergoing a semen analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Men who provided a semen sample were identified from insurance claims between 2007 and 2016. Differences in semen parameters were characterized according to age, race, education, and region. Mean semen parameters and proportions of men with suboptimal parameters were compared and risks of oligospermia and azoospermia were assessed by logistic regression. RESULTS Of the 7263 men included, most men were white (55.1%), Hispanic (20.2%), or Asian (10.2%). Asians had the highest mean semen concentrations (69.2 x 10(6)/mL), whereas blacks had the lowest (51.3 x 10(6)/mL). Men from the Midwest were more likely to have oligospermia (odds ratio [OR] 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-1.94), whereas men from the West were less likely (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.82-0.94) when compared with men from South. An association between education and sperm concentration was observed. For example, men with a high school diploma or less were more likely to have oligospermia (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.95-1.26), whereas men with at least a bachelor degree were less likely (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.76-1.0) when compared with men with less than a bachelor degree. CONCLUSION As we observed differences in semen quality based on sociodemographic factors, these findings may have clinical implications as relying on a single reference value when guiding infertile couples may be problematic given these variations. Further work is warranted to understand the etiology of such differences and determine if different normative reference values may apply for different populations. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据