↓ Skip to main content

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 (#3 of 850)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
30 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
64 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
336 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 336 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 336 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 19%
Student > Bachelor 55 16%
Researcher 44 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 10%
Other 23 7%
Other 69 21%
Unknown 46 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 36 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 11%
Social Sciences 12 4%
Other 37 11%
Unknown 70 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 290. 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 01 April 2020.
All research outputs
#54,134
of 15,606,445 outputs
Outputs from Human Reproduction Update
#3
of 850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,240
of 261,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Reproduction Update
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,606,445 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 850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 261,183 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 2 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