4.6 Article

Association of in utero exposure to maternal smoking with reduced semen quality and testis size in adulthood: A cross-sectional study of 1,770 young men from the general population in five European countries

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 159, 期 1, 页码 49-58

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh002

关键词

pregnancy; prenatal exposure delayed effects; semen; smoking; spermatozoa; sperm count

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Between 1996 and 1999, the authors invited all young men from five European countries who were undergoing compulsory medical examination for possible military service to participate in a study on male reproductive health. The participation rate was 19% in two cities in Denmark (n = 889), 17% in Oslo, Norway (n = 221), 13% in Turku, Finland (n = 313), 14% in Kaunas, Lithuania (n = 157), and 19% in Tartu, Estonia (n = 190). Each man provided a semen sample, was examined by a physician, and, in collaboration with his mother, completed a questionnaire about general and reproductive health, current smoking habits, and exposure to smoking in utero. After adjustment for confounding factors, men exposed to smoking in utero had a reduction in sperm concentration of 20.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.8, 33.5) and a reduction in total sperm count of 24.5% (95% CI: 9.5, 39.5) in comparison with unexposed men. Percentages of motile and morphologically normal sperm cells were 1.85 (95% CI: 0.46, 3.23) and 0.64 (95% CI: -0.02, 1.30) percentage points lower, respectively, among men exposed in utero, and exposed men had a 1.15-ml (95% CI: 0.66, 1.64) smaller testis size. The associations were present when data from the study centers were analyzed separately (though not in Lithuania, where only 1% of mothers smoked during pregnancy), although the strength of the association varied. Maternal smoking may have long-term implications for the reproductive health of the offspring. This is another good reason to advise pregnant women to avoid smoking.

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

4.6
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