Is human fecundity changing? A discussion of research and data gaps precluding us from having an answer

Melissa M. Smarr, Katherine J. Sapra, Alison Gemmill, Linda G. Kahn, Lauren A. Wise, Courtney D. Lynch, Pam Factor-Litvak, Sunni L. Mumford, Niels E. Skakkebaek, Rémy Slama, Danelle T. Lobdell, Joseph B. Stanford, Tina Kold Jensen, Elizabeth Heger Boyle, Michael L. Eisenberg, Paul J. Turek, Rajeshwari Sundaram, Marie E. Thoma, Germaine M.Buck Louis

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Fecundity, the biologic capacity to reproduce, is essential for the health of individuals and is, therefore, fundamental for understanding human health at the population level. Given the absence of a population (bio)marker, fecundity is assessed indirectly by various individual-based (e.g. semen quality, ovulation) or couple-based (e.g. time-to-pregnancy) endpoints. Population monitoring of fecundity is challenging, and often defaults to relying on rates of births (fertility) or adverse outcomes such as genitourinary malformations and reproductive site cancers. In light of reported declines in semen quality and fertility rates in some global regions among other changes, the question as to whether human fecundity is changing needs investigation. We review existing data and novel methodological approaches aimed at answering this question from a transdisciplinary perspective. The existing literature is insufficient for answering this question; we provide an overview of currently available resources and novel methods suitable for delineating temporal patterns in human fecundity in future research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)499-504
Number of pages6
JournalHuman Reproduction
Volume32
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

Fertility
Birth Rate
Research
Semen Analysis
Time-to-Pregnancy
Population
Health
Ovulation
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Epidemiology
  • Fecundity
  • Fertility
  • Gynecologic diseases
  • Time-to-pregnancy
  • Urologic diseases

Cite this

Smarr, M. M., Sapra, K. J., Gemmill, A., Kahn, L. G., Wise, L. A., Lynch, C. D., ... Louis, G. M. B. (2017). Is human fecundity changing? A discussion of research and data gaps precluding us from having an answer. Human Reproduction, 32(3), 499-504. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew361

Is human fecundity changing? A discussion of research and data gaps precluding us from having an answer. / Smarr, Melissa M.; Sapra, Katherine J.; Gemmill, Alison; Kahn, Linda G.; Wise, Lauren A.; Lynch, Courtney D.; Factor-Litvak, Pam; Mumford, Sunni L.; Skakkebaek, Niels E.; Slama, Rémy; Lobdell, Danelle T.; Stanford, Joseph B.; Jensen, Tina Kold; Boyle, Elizabeth Heger; Eisenberg, Michael L.; Turek, Paul J.; Sundaram, Rajeshwari; Thoma, Marie E.; Louis, Germaine M.Buck.

In: Human Reproduction, Vol. 32, No. 3, 01.03.2017, p. 499-504.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Smarr, MM, Sapra, KJ, Gemmill, A, Kahn, LG, Wise, LA, Lynch, CD, Factor-Litvak, P, Mumford, SL, Skakkebaek, NE, Slama, R, Lobdell, DT, Stanford, JB, Jensen, TK, Boyle, EH, Eisenberg, ML, Turek, PJ, Sundaram, R, Thoma, ME & Louis, GMB 2017, 'Is human fecundity changing? A discussion of research and data gaps precluding us from having an answer', Human Reproduction, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 499-504. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew361
Smarr, Melissa M. ; Sapra, Katherine J. ; Gemmill, Alison ; Kahn, Linda G. ; Wise, Lauren A. ; Lynch, Courtney D. ; Factor-Litvak, Pam ; Mumford, Sunni L. ; Skakkebaek, Niels E. ; Slama, Rémy ; Lobdell, Danelle T. ; Stanford, Joseph B. ; Jensen, Tina Kold ; Boyle, Elizabeth Heger ; Eisenberg, Michael L. ; Turek, Paul J. ; Sundaram, Rajeshwari ; Thoma, Marie E. ; Louis, Germaine M.Buck. / Is human fecundity changing? A discussion of research and data gaps precluding us from having an answer. In: Human Reproduction. 2017 ; Vol. 32, No. 3. pp. 499-504.
@article{252f1f0409ae4e1ba1949f054e57cca3,
title = "Is human fecundity changing? A discussion of research and data gaps precluding us from having an answer",
abstract = "Fecundity, the biologic capacity to reproduce, is essential for the health of individuals and is, therefore, fundamental for understanding human health at the population level. Given the absence of a population (bio)marker, fecundity is assessed indirectly by various individual-based (e.g. semen quality, ovulation) or couple-based (e.g. time-to-pregnancy) endpoints. Population monitoring of fecundity is challenging, and often defaults to relying on rates of births (fertility) or adverse outcomes such as genitourinary malformations and reproductive site cancers. In light of reported declines in semen quality and fertility rates in some global regions among other changes, the question as to whether human fecundity is changing needs investigation. We review existing data and novel methodological approaches aimed at answering this question from a transdisciplinary perspective. The existing literature is insufficient for answering this question; we provide an overview of currently available resources and novel methods suitable for delineating temporal patterns in human fecundity in future research.",
keywords = "Epidemiology, Fecundity, Fertility, Gynecologic diseases, Time-to-pregnancy, Urologic diseases",
author = "Smarr, {Melissa M.} and Sapra, {Katherine J.} and Alison Gemmill and Kahn, {Linda G.} and Wise, {Lauren A.} and Lynch, {Courtney D.} and Pam Factor-Litvak and Mumford, {Sunni L.} and Skakkebaek, {Niels E.} and R{\'e}my Slama and Lobdell, {Danelle T.} and Stanford, {Joseph B.} and Jensen, {Tina Kold} and Boyle, {Elizabeth Heger} and Eisenberg, {Michael L.} and Turek, {Paul J.} and Rajeshwari Sundaram and Thoma, {Marie E.} and Louis, {Germaine M.Buck}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/humrep/dew361",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "499--504",
journal = "Human Reproduction",
issn = "0268-1161",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is human fecundity changing? A discussion of research and data gaps precluding us from having an answer

AU - Smarr, Melissa M.

AU - Sapra, Katherine J.

AU - Gemmill, Alison

AU - Kahn, Linda G.

AU - Wise, Lauren A.

AU - Lynch, Courtney D.

AU - Factor-Litvak, Pam

AU - Mumford, Sunni L.

AU - Skakkebaek, Niels E.

AU - Slama, Rémy

AU - Lobdell, Danelle T.

AU - Stanford, Joseph B.

AU - Jensen, Tina Kold

AU - Boyle, Elizabeth Heger

AU - Eisenberg, Michael L.

AU - Turek, Paul J.

AU - Sundaram, Rajeshwari

AU - Thoma, Marie E.

AU - Louis, Germaine M.Buck

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Fecundity, the biologic capacity to reproduce, is essential for the health of individuals and is, therefore, fundamental for understanding human health at the population level. Given the absence of a population (bio)marker, fecundity is assessed indirectly by various individual-based (e.g. semen quality, ovulation) or couple-based (e.g. time-to-pregnancy) endpoints. Population monitoring of fecundity is challenging, and often defaults to relying on rates of births (fertility) or adverse outcomes such as genitourinary malformations and reproductive site cancers. In light of reported declines in semen quality and fertility rates in some global regions among other changes, the question as to whether human fecundity is changing needs investigation. We review existing data and novel methodological approaches aimed at answering this question from a transdisciplinary perspective. The existing literature is insufficient for answering this question; we provide an overview of currently available resources and novel methods suitable for delineating temporal patterns in human fecundity in future research.

AB - Fecundity, the biologic capacity to reproduce, is essential for the health of individuals and is, therefore, fundamental for understanding human health at the population level. Given the absence of a population (bio)marker, fecundity is assessed indirectly by various individual-based (e.g. semen quality, ovulation) or couple-based (e.g. time-to-pregnancy) endpoints. Population monitoring of fecundity is challenging, and often defaults to relying on rates of births (fertility) or adverse outcomes such as genitourinary malformations and reproductive site cancers. In light of reported declines in semen quality and fertility rates in some global regions among other changes, the question as to whether human fecundity is changing needs investigation. We review existing data and novel methodological approaches aimed at answering this question from a transdisciplinary perspective. The existing literature is insufficient for answering this question; we provide an overview of currently available resources and novel methods suitable for delineating temporal patterns in human fecundity in future research.

KW - Epidemiology

KW - Fecundity

KW - Fertility

KW - Gynecologic diseases

KW - Time-to-pregnancy

KW - Urologic diseases

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019869472&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85019869472&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/humrep/dew361

DO - 10.1093/humrep/dew361

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28137753

AN - SCOPUS:85019869472

VL - 32

SP - 499

EP - 504

JO - Human Reproduction

JF - Human Reproduction

SN - 0268-1161

IS - 3

ER -