↓ Skip to main content

Oxford University Press

Dietary patterns, foods and nutrients in male fertility parameters and fecundability: a systematic review of observational studies

Overview of attention for article published in Human Reproduction Update, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 1,081)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
39 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
60 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
334 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
701 Mendeley
Title
Dietary patterns, foods and nutrients in male fertility parameters and fecundability: a systematic review of observational studies
Published in
Human Reproduction Update, March 2017
DOI 10.1093/humupd/dmx006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Albert Salas-Huetos, Mònica Bulló, Jordi Salas-Salvadó

Abstract

Infertility is a global public health issue, affecting 15% of all couples of reproductive age. Male factors, including decreased semen quality, are responsible for ~25% of these cases. The dietary pattern, the components of the diet and nutrients have been studied as possible determinants of sperm function and/or fertility. Previous systematic reviews have been made of the few heterogeneous low-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in small samples of participants and investigating the effect of specific nutrients and nutritional supplements on male infertility. However, as yet there has been no systematic review of observational studies. A comprehensive systematic review was made of the published literature, from the earliest available online indexing year to November 2016, in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We have included cross-sectional, case-control and prospective and retrospective studies in which fertile/infertile men were well defined (men with sperm disorders, sperm DNA damage, varicocele or idiopathic infertility). The primary outcomes were semen quality or fecundability. With the data extracted, we evaluated and scored the quality of the studies selected. We excluded RCTs, animal studies, review articles and low-quality studies. A total of 1944 articles were identified, of which 35 were selected for qualitative analysis. Generally, the results indicated that healthy diets rich in some nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids, some antioxidants (vitamin E, vitamin C, β-carotene, selenium, zinc, cryptoxanthin and lycopene), other vitamins (vitamin D and folate) and low in saturated fatty acids and trans-fatty acids were inversely associated with low semen quality parameters. Fish, shellfish and seafood, poultry, cereals, vegetables and fruits, low-fat dairy and skimmed milk were positively associated with several sperm quality parameters. However, diets rich in processed meat, soy foods, potatoes, full-fat dairy and total dairy products, cheese, coffee, alcohol, sugar-sweetened beverages and sweets have been detrimentally associated with the quality of semen in some studies. As far as fecundability is concerned, a high intake of alcohol, caffeine and red meat and processed meat by males has a negative influence on the chance of pregnancy or fertilization rates in their partners. Male adherence to a healthy diet could improve semen quality and fecundability rates. Since observational studies may prove associations but not causation, the associations summarized in the present review need to be confirmed with large prospective cohort studies and especially with well-designed RCTs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 701 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 701 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 104 15%
Student > Bachelor 90 13%
Researcher 62 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 8%
Other 40 6%
Other 121 17%
Unknown 226 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 159 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 87 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 64 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 7%
Social Sciences 14 2%
Other 70 10%
Unknown 258 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 347. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2024.
All research outputs
#96,187
of 25,886,866 outputs
Outputs from Human Reproduction Update
#6
of 1,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,321
of 324,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Reproduction Update
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,886,866 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them