4.5 Article

Occupational factors and markers of ovarian reserve and response among women at a fertility centre

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 74, 期 6, 页码 426-431

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2016-103953

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) [R01ES022955, R01ES009718, R01ES000002]
  2. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [L50-HD085359]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To explore whether work schedules and physically demanding work were associated with markers of ovarian reserve and response. Methods This analysis included women (n=473 and n=313 for ovarian reserve and ovarian response analysis, respectively) enrolled in a prospective cohort study of couples presenting to an academic fertility centre (2004-2015). Information on occupational factors was collected on a take-home questionnaire, and reproductive outcomes were abstracted from electronic medical records. Generalised linear models and generalised linear mixed models were used to evaluate the associations. Results Women who reported lifting or moving heavy objects at work had 1.0 fewer total oocytes (p=0.08), 1.4 fewer mature oocytes (p=0.007) and 0.7 fewer antral follicles (p=0.06) compared with women who reported never lifting or moving heavy objects at work. The inverse association between heavy lifting and oocyte yield was stronger in women >37 years and with a Body Mass Index >= 25 kg/m(2). Women who worked evening/ night/rotating shifts had 2.3 (p<0.001) fewer mature oocytes, on average, compared with women who worked day-only shifts. None of the occupational exposures were associated with day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone or peak oestradiol levels. Conclusions Women working non-daytime shifts and those with physically demanding jobs had fewer mature oocytes retrieved after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Our results provide insight into possible mechanisms linking these occupational exposures with decreased fecundity.

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

4.5
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