Advertisement

Journal of Endocrinological Investigation

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 402–411 | Cite as

Myth and reality of the decline in semen quality: An example of the relativity of data interpretation

  • L. Gandini
  • F. Lombardo
  • F. Culasso
  • F. Dondero
  • Andrea LenziEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

Many hypotheses have been put forward to explain a suspected decline in semen quality. Up to now many sources of data were used but conflicting results are present in the literature. To study whether modifications of sperm parameters actually exist we used data from two groups of patients checked and two small groups of sperm bank donors selected at the beginning ’80s and ’90s. We tried to reduce bias to a minimum: all the semen analyses were carried out by the same biologist, using the same methods, groups were clinically evaluated by the same andrological team, the study groups were homogeneous for age, geographic-ethnic origin, residence, monthly-seasonal distribution and abstinence period. Comparing patients from the ’80s and the ’90s, sperm concentration and motility showed a significant reduction. Furthermore, the decrease in concentration and motility was mainly due to the higher age classes. In donors, no decline was observed. These results seem to indicate that sperm donors remain unaffected, while patients with lower levels of semen quality are experiencing a real decline. Unfortunately, many confounding variables, analyzed in detail in this review, still remain despite efforts at standardization.

Key-words

Semen quality male fertility epidemiology sperm concentration sperm motility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Carlsen E., Giwercman A., Keiding N., Skakkebæk N.E. Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years. Br. Med. J. 1992, 305: 609–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keiding N., Giwercman A., Carlsen E., Skakkebæk N.E. Falling sperm quality. Br. Med. J. 1994, 309: 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olsen G.W., Bodner K.M., Ramlow J.M., Ross C.E., Lipshultz L.I. Have sperm counts been reduced 50 percent in 50 years? A statistical model revisited. Fertil Steril. 1995, 63: 887–893.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fisch H., Goluboff E.T. Geographic variations in sperm counts: a potential cause of bias in studies of semen quality. Fertil. Steril. 1996, 65: 1044–1046.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becker S., Berhane K. A meta-analysis of 61 sperm count studies revisited. Fertil. Steril. 1997, 67: 1103–1108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Auger J., Kunstmann J.M., Czyglik F., Jouannet P. Decline in semen quality among fertile men in Paris during the past 20 years. N. Engl. J. Med. 1995, 332: 281–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bujan L., Mansat A., Pontonnier F., Mieusset R. Time series analysis of sperm concentration in fertile men in Toulouse, France between 1977 and 1992. Br. Med. J. 1996, 312: 471–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Waeleghem K., De Clercq N., Vermeule L., et al. Deterioration of sperm quality in young healthy Belgian men. Hum. Reprod. 1996, 11: 325–329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wittmaack F.M., Shapiro S.S. Longitudinal study of semen quality in Wisconsin men over a decade. Wis. Med. J. 1992, 91: 477–479.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fisch H., Feldshuh J., Goluboff E.T., Olson J.H., et al. Semen analyses in 1283 men from the United States over a 25-year: no decline in quality. Fertil. Steril. 1996, 65: 1009–1014.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paulsen C.A., Berman N.G., Wang C. Data from men in greater Seattle area reveals no downward trend in semen quality: further evidence that deterioration of semen quality is not geographically uniform. Fertil. Steril. 1996, 65: 1015–1020.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Irvine S., Cawood E., Richardson D., et al. Evidence of deteriorating semen quality in the United Kingdom: birth cohort study in 577 men in Scotland over 11 years. Br. Med. J. 1996, 312: 467–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rasmussen P.E., Erb K., Westergaard L.G., Laursen S.B. No evidence for decreasing semen quality in four birth cohorts of 1,055 Danish men born between 1950 and 1970. Fertil. Steril. 1997, 68: 1059–1064.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adamopulos D.A., Pappa A., Nicopoulou S., et al. Seminal volume and total sperm number trends in men attending subfertility clinics in the Greater Athens area during the year 1977–1993. Hum. Reprod. 1996, 11: 1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vierula M., Niemi M., Keiski A., et al. High and unchanged sperm counts of Finnish men. Int. J. Androl. 1996, 19: 11–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berling S., Wölner-Hanssen P. No evidence of deteriorating semen quality among men in infertile relationships during the last decade: a study of males from Southern Sweden. Hum Reprod 1997, 12: 1002–1005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nikkanen V. The effects of vasectomy on viscosity, pH and volume of semen in man. Andrologia 1979, 11: 123–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suominen J., Vierula M. Semen quality in Finnish men. Br. Med. J. 1993, 306: 1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Adami H.O., Bergström R., Möhner M., et al. Testicular cancer in nine northern European countries. Int. J. Cancer 1994, 59: 33–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clermont Y. Quantitative analysis of spermatogenesis of the rat: revised model for the renewal of spermatogonia. Am. J. Anat. 1962, 111: 111–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Steinberger E., Tjioe D.Y. A method for quantitative analysis of human seminiferous epithelium. Fertil. Steril. 1968, 19: 960–970.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson L., Chaturvedi P.K., Williams J.D. Missing generations of spermatocytes and spermatids in seminiferous epithelium contribute to low efficiency of spermatogenesis in humans. Biol. Reprod. 1992, 47: 1091–1098.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pajarinen J., Laippala P., Penttila A., et al. Incidence of disorders of spermatogenesis in middle aged Finnish men, 1981–91: two necropsy series. Br. Med. J. 1997, 314: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    World Health Organization Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    World Health Organization Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction, ed. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    World Health Organization Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction, ed. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nelson C.M., Bunge R.G. Semen analysis: evidence for changing parameters of male fertility potential. Fertil. Steril. 1974, 25: 503–507.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Feichtinger W. Enviromental factors and fertility. Hum. Reprod. 1982, 6: 1170–1175.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sharpe R.M., Skakkebæk N.E. Are oestrogens involved in falling sperm counts and disorders of the male reproductive tract? Lancet 1993, 341: 1392–1395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Editorial Male reproductive health and enviromental oestrogens. Lancet 1995, 345: 933–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yasuda Y., Kihaja T., Tanimura T. Effect of ethinyl estradiol on the differentiation of mouse fetal testis. Teratology 1985, 32: 113–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Figà-Talamanca I., Dondero F., Gandini L., et al. Male infertility and occupational exposures: a casecontrol study. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 1992, 1: 255–264.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Forti G., Serio M. Male infertility: is its rising incidence due to better methods of detection or an increasing frequency? Hum. Reprod. 1993, 8: 1153–1154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sherins R.J. Are semen quality and male fertility changing? N. Engl. J. Med. 1995, 332: 327–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jørgensen N., Auger J., Giwercman A., et al. Semen analysis performed by different laboratory teams: an intervariation study. Int. J. Androl. 1997, 20: 201–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Setchell B.P. Sperm counts in semen of farm animals 1932–1995. Int. J. Androl. 1997, 20: 209–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    MacLeod J., Gold R.Z. The male factor in fertility and infertility. II. Spermatozoa counts in 1000 men of known fertility and in 1000 cases of infertile marriage. J. Urol. 1951, 66: 436–449.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE) 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Gandini
    • 1
  • F. Lombardo
    • 1
  • F. Culasso
    • 2
  • F. Dondero
    • 1
  • Andrea Lenzi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Dept of Medical Pathophysiology, Policlinico “Umberto I”, University of Rome “La Sapienza”The University Laboratory of Seminology and Immunology of ReproductionRomeItaly
  2. 2.Chair of Health Statistics, Department of Experimental MedicineUniversity of Rome “La Sapienza”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations