This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Reproductive Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Source 1 does not resolve. What is this statement even based on then?

21 participants, no control group

"Contrary to widely held beliefs, no evidence supports that wearing constrictive underwear, or "briefs," decreases fertility. Even with an elevation in temperature of 0.8-1° caused by wearing constrictive underwear, no changes in sperm parameters, no decrease in spermatogenesis, and no changes in sperm function are observed"

Sourced: Wang C, McDonald V, Leung A, Superlano L, Berman N, Hull L, et al. Effect of increased scrotal temperature on sperm production in normal men. Fertil Steril. Aug 1997;68(2):334-9. [Medline]

link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9240266 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.47.8 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was given as further literature:

• M. Crausaz, J. Vargas, R. Parapanov, Y. Chollet, M. Wissard, E. Stettler, A. Senn, M. Germond: First Evaluation of Human Sperm Quality in Various Geographic Regions in Switzerland. Chimia 62 (2008), 395–400. doi:10.2533/chimia.2008.395

However, is this really worth reading (if you don't live in Switzerland)? If there is some interesting facts in it, please share it in the article, using it as a reference instead. This deserves inclusion (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, can anybody explain the meaning and importance of this entry:

<!-- Biol. Lett. (2005) 1, 253–255 doi:10.1098/rsbl.2005.0324 --> 

This deserves inclusion (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "literature" section was only added last month (diff), and I also can't see what value it added to the article.

The commented out reference was added here. I've seen editors do that when they intend to come back and incorporate the ref into the article later; maybe Dysmorodrepanis meant to do that? If so, it's been so long (s)he must have forgotten and there's no harm in removing it. Lyrl^Talk _C 13:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the results are interesting enough to be cited, even for non-Swiss or non-European residents. Endocrine disruptors are not included in the paragraph Chemicals or Hormones yet. I certainly don't object, if you convert the literature to a reference. IMHO more studies on this topic from other regions should be added. --Leyo 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Diet section it states, and I quote, "Obesity increases risk of oligospermia and low motility by 300%[30], being overweight by 200%" yet on the Oligospermia page it states "However, it is independent of physique, general state of health, diet, libido or sex frequency" thoughts? --Krakaet (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:WildBot tagged 2 section links [[Infertility#prevention|preventing infertility]] and [[phytoestrogen#Phytoestrogen_in_men|phytoestrogen in men]] as broken section links approximately 2 months ago. I changed them to [[Infertility#Causes]] and [[Phytoestrogen#Males]] respectively. 63.226.240.208 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article shows a bias towards higher semen quality and fertility. That view is not universal or unanimous. Many people (men/women/couples) do not want any/more children. For them, lower semen quality and male fertility may be preferable. How can the article reflect multiple views? 63.226.240.208 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes heavy use of sources of Cryos International. This is a commercial sperm bank whose founder is not even a scientist and who claims insemination to a healthy woman is not a medical issue. The Economist cites its founder: “It takes place millions of times each day without a doctor”. Reliable non-commercial sources should be preferred. Crotopaxi (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Men who had ever smoked marijuana had significantly higher sperm concentration than men who had never smoked marijuana in unadjusted (Supplementary Table III) and multivariable-adjusted analyses (62.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 56.0, 70.3) million/mL vs. 45.4 (38.6, 53.3) million/mL; P = 0.0003) (Table II). There were no statistically significant differences in sperm concentration between current and past marijuana smokers (P = 0.60). Similar patterns were observed for total sperm count. Men who had ever smoked marijuana also had 16% (−27%, −4%) lower serum FSH concentrations than men who had never smoked it, with no significant differences between past and current marijuana smokers (P = 0.53) (Table II). There were no associations of marijuana smoking status with other semen parameters, markers of sperm DNA integrity or other reproductive hormone concentrations. Of note, cocaine use was associated with a higher adjusted proportion of sperm concentration and count below the WHO reference values. In these analyses, marijuana smokers had an estimated 5% (95% CI: 3%, 9%) of semen samples with concentrations below 15 million/mL while never marijuana smokers had 12% (95% CI: 8%, 19%) (Fig. I and Supplementary Table SIV). 2600:6C64:4FF0:1A80:E14D:EF37:9E47:E4C2 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/34/4/715/5307080#132930213 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:4FF0:1A80:E14D:EF37:9E47:E4C2 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]