MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411919961 · doi:10.1186/s42269-025-01333-3

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on male sperm quality and fertility in the context of assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic literature review

2025· article· en· W4411919961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Poulitsidou, Stefan P. Kuster, Vera Hungerbühler

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the National Research Centre/Bulletin of the National Research Center · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)FertilitySperm qualityCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)VaccinationReproductive technologySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)SpermMale fertilityVirologyBiology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakMedicineEnvironmental healthPopulationOutbreakPregnancyInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)Genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Context Widespread concern has emerged regarding the potential impact of COVID-19 vaccines on male fertility, particularly in the context of assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Objective This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on male sperm quality and its implications for fertility in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intrauterine insemination (IUI). Design Systematic review of original research articles. Data sources For this systematic review, an exploration of relevant original research articles was performed through a literature search in the EMBASE, Cochrane and Medline databases, encompassing publications up to October 10th, 2023. Eligibility criteria Randomized controlled trials and observational studies on men of reproductive age who received a COVID-19 vaccine, with available semen analysis parameters. Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. Studies were assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Main outcome measures Semen volume, pH levels, sperm count/concentration, progressive motility, and morphology. Key results 18 original studies were included in our review. Findings showed that 11% of studies reported an increase in semen volume, while none reported a decrease. No studies reported an increase in pH, but 5% noted a decrease. For sperm count or concentration, 11% of studies reported an increase, and 5% reported a decrease, suggesting heterogeneous effects without a clear positive or negative trend. Progressive motility increased in 5% of studies but decreased in 11%. No studies reported improved sperm morphology, while 11% noted impairment. Sperm parameters were assessed at varying intervals post-second COVID-19 vaccination, with an average of 96 days (range: 1–9 months). All studies achieved satisfactory quality. Implications Given the varied research outcomes, there is a critical need for standardized and comprehensive studies to understand the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on male fertility. Further research targeting individuals with oligospermia is essential to comprehensively assess vaccine effects on fertility, while addressing identified study limitations is crucial for interpreting findings accurately and reliably.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.323 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the National Research Centre/Bulletin of the National Research CenterSame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207