MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307382820 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckac131.415

The impact of Covid-19 vaccines on fertility-A systematic review and metanalysis

2022· article· en· W4307382820 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Drieda Zaçe, Emanuele LA Gatta, Luigi Petrella, A Shukhovtseva, ML Di Pietro

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisFertilityVaccinationConfidence intervalMisinformationDemographyWeb of scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Adverse effectInternal medicineImmunologyPopulationEnvironmental healthDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Despite literature’s proofs about their safety, concerns arose regarding adverse events due to Covid-19 vaccines, including the possible impact on fertility, accentuated by misinformation and anti-vaccine campaigns. The aim of this study was to evaluate the Covid-19 vaccines’ impact on male and female fertility. Methods PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for eligible studies until March 7th, 2022. Primary studies investigating the Covid-19 vaccines impact on male and female fertility, were included. Studies’ quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa and the Before and After Quality Assessment scales for cohort and pre-post studies, respectively. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed for parameters considered in ≥ 2 studies, calculating means, p-values and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs). I2 statistics was used to assess statistical heterogeneity. Results Out of 1406 studies screened, 20 studies were included in the systematic review. These studies, conducted in Israel (35%), USA (30%), Russia (25%), China (5%) and Italy (5%), were of poor (15%), moderate (75%) and good (10%) quality. Meta-analyses among five studies considering several vaccines were performed for pre- and post-vaccination sperm progressive motility ((49%, 95% CI 36-67% vs 49%, 95% CI 39-61%; p = 0.963) and concentration (64.39 mln/ml, 95% CI 47.51-87.28 and 72.00 mln/ml, 95% CI 51.22-101.21; p = 0.03). Subgroup meta-analyses based on the type of vaccine showed no significant difference: between vaccinated with mRNA vaccines and non-vaccinated regarding biochemical pregnancy rates; pre- and post-vaccination with Gam-COVID-Vac regarding testosterone, FSH and LH levels; pre- and post-vaccination with BNT162b2 vaccines regarding sperm volumes. Discussion There is no scientific proof of any association between Covid-19 vaccines and infertility in men or women. Misinformation and doubts about vaccines should be properly addressed. Key messages • The doubts regarding Covid-19 vaccines’ impact on both male and female fertility resulted to be unfounded. Covid-19 vaccines remain the most important weapon to fight the pandemic. • It is important to keep providing to public opinion and health care providers evidence-based scientific information, in order to effectively combat misinformation and anti-vaccines campaigns.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207