[A cross-sectional study on nonionizing radiation to male fertility].

PAPER pubmed Zhonghua liu xing bing xue za zhi = Zhonghua liuxingbingxue zazhi 2004 Cross-sectional study Effect: mixed Evidence: Low

Read original paper → PMID: 15061945 Evidence Lab

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between microwave radiation and male reproductivity. METHODS: After filling out questionnaire and body check, we carried out molecular epidemiological studies, using single cell gel electrophoresis (SCGE) and sperm automatic analysis among people working on radar. RESULTS: Quality of semen and semi-clinical injury of sperm among the people working on radar had changed when radar electromagnetic wave frequency distance, intensity, lasting time and protection shield were changing. Dose-response relationship was noticed and the increase of sperm dysmorphia played a principal role. The results between exposed group and control group showed significant difference (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: People working on radar who suffered from non-ionization for long time and had bad radar shield protection would show semi-clinical injury on sperm and bad semen quality. However, it did not affect the male reproductive function. It was necessary to reinforce the protection of non-ionization and to improve male reproductive health care of people working on radar.

AI evidence extraction

At a glance

Study type

Cross-sectional study

Effect direction

mixed

Population

People working on radar (male workers implied)

Sample size

—

Exposure

microwave occupational (radar) · long time (not further specified)

Evidence strength

Low

Confidence: 74% · Peer-reviewed: yes

Main findings

Among radar workers, semen quality and semi-clinical sperm injury varied with radar electromagnetic wave frequency, distance, intensity, duration, and shielding; a dose-response relationship was reported, with increased sperm dysmorphia described as a principal factor. Exposed and control groups differed significantly (P < 0.01). The authors conclude that long-term exposure with poor shielding is associated with poorer semen quality and semi-clinical sperm injury, but that male reproductive function was not affected.

Outcomes measured

semen quality
sperm semi-clinical injury
sperm dysmorphia
SCGE (single cell gel electrophoresis) findings
male reproductive function

Limitations

Cross-sectional design (as stated in title)
Sample size not reported in abstract
Exposure metrics (frequency, distance, intensity) not quantified in abstract
Potential confounding and selection factors not described (questionnaire/body check mentioned but details not provided)
Outcome definition of 'male reproductive function' not specified in abstract

Suggested hubs

occupational-exposure (0.95)
Study population is people working on radar with occupational microwave exposure.

View raw extracted JSON

{
    "study_type": "cross_sectional",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "microwave",
        "source": "occupational (radar)",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": "long time (not further specified)"
    },
    "population": "People working on radar (male workers implied)",
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "semen quality",
        "sperm semi-clinical injury",
        "sperm dysmorphia",
        "SCGE (single cell gel electrophoresis) findings",
        "male reproductive function"
    ],
    "main_findings": "Among radar workers, semen quality and semi-clinical sperm injury varied with radar electromagnetic wave frequency, distance, intensity, duration, and shielding; a dose-response relationship was reported, with increased sperm dysmorphia described as a principal factor. Exposed and control groups differed significantly (P < 0.01). The authors conclude that long-term exposure with poor shielding is associated with poorer semen quality and semi-clinical sperm injury, but that male reproductive function was not affected.",
    "effect_direction": "mixed",
    "limitations": [
        "Cross-sectional design (as stated in title)",
        "Sample size not reported in abstract",
        "Exposure metrics (frequency, distance, intensity) not quantified in abstract",
        "Potential confounding and selection factors not described (questionnaire/body check mentioned but details not provided)",
        "Outcome definition of 'male reproductive function' not specified in abstract"
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "low",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "microwave radiation",
        "radar",
        "occupational exposure",
        "male fertility",
        "semen quality",
        "sperm dysmorphia",
        "SCGE",
        "nonionizing radiation"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "occupational-exposure",
            "weight": 0.9499999999999999555910790149937383830547332763671875,
            "reason": "Study population is people working on radar with occupational microwave exposure."
        }
    ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract/metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Comments

No comments yet.