Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of Endocrinological Investigation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Keiding N., Giwercman A., Carlsen E., Skakkebæk N.E. Falling sperm quality. Br. Med. J. 1994, 309: 131.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Becker S., Berhane K. A meta-analysis of 61 sperm count studies revisited. Fertil. Steril. 1997, 67: 1103–1108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vierula M., Niemi M., Keiski A., et al. High and unchanged sperm counts of Finnish men. Int. J. Androl. 1996, 19: 11–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nikkanen V. The effects of vasectomy on viscosity, pH and volume of semen in man. Andrologia 1979, 11: 123–125.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Suominen J., Vierula M. Semen quality in Finnish men. Br. Med. J. 1993, 306: 1579.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Adami H.O., Bergström R., Möhner M., et al. Testicular cancer in nine northern European countries. Int. J. Cancer 1994, 59: 33–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Clermont Y. Quantitative analysis of spermatogenesis of the rat: revised model for the renewal of spermatogonia. Am. J. Anat. 1962, 111: 111–119.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Steinberger E., Tjioe D.Y. A method for quantitative analysis of human seminiferous epithelium. Fertil. Steril. 1968, 19: 960–970.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. World Health Organization Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.

  25. World Health Organization Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction, ed. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.

  26. World Health Organization Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction, ed. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.

  27. Nelson C.M., Bunge R.G. Semen analysis: evidence for changing parameters of male fertility potential. Fertil. Steril. 1974, 25: 503–507.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Feichtinger W. Enviromental factors and fertility. Hum. Reprod. 1982, 6: 1170–1175.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Editorial Male reproductive health and enviromental oestrogens. Lancet 1995, 345: 933–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yasuda Y., Kihaja T., Tanimura T. Effect of ethinyl estradiol on the differentiation of mouse fetal testis. Teratology 1985, 32: 113–118.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sherins R.J. Are semen quality and male fertility changing? N. Engl. J. Med. 1995, 332: 327–328.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Setchell B.P. Sperm counts in semen of farm animals 1932–1995. Int. J. Androl. 1997, 20: 209–214.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept of Medical Pathophysiology, Policlinico “Umberto I”, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, The University Laboratory of Seminology and Immunology of Reproduction, 00161, Rome, Italy

    L. Gandini, F. Lombardo, F. Dondero & Andrea Lenzi

  2. Chair of Health Statistics, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy

    F. Culasso

Authors
  1. L. Gandini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Lombardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Culasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Dondero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Lenzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Lenzi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gandini, L., Lombardo, F., Culasso, F. et al. Myth and reality of the decline in semen quality: An example of the relativity of data interpretation. J Endocrinol Invest 23, 402–411 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03343745

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03343745

Key-words

Search

Navigation