Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tielemans, E.
Right arrow Articles by Heederik, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tielemans, E.
Right arrow Articles by Heederik, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Am J Epidemiol 2002; 156:86-92.
Copyright © 2002 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

PRACTICE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY

Sources of Bias in Studies among Infertility Clients

Erik Tielemans1,2, Alex Burdorf2, Egbert te Velde3, Rob Weber4, Roelof van Kooij3 and Dick Heederik1

1 Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
2 Department of Public Health, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
4 Department of Andrology, University Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

An assumption in case-control studies is that forces of selection are the same for cases and controls. This may not be true for studies of male infertility among infertility clients. Earlier reproductive outcomes may introduce modification of risk behavior or differential referral. Selection bias might also occur when infertile males are compared with fertile males. Partners of sterile men are more likely to have "normal" fertility, while partners of a reference group of normozoospermic men tend to have a lower fertility potential. The latter may lead to overrepresentation of causes of reduced female fertility and introduce bias into estimates of risk factors shared by couples. The relation between cigarette smoking and semen quality was studied in a population of infertility clients from the Netherlands during 1995–1996. To reduce the potential for bias, this relation was studied first in a restricted population less aware of the type of infertility involved. The odds ratio of infertility with smoking was elevated in the restricted population as compared with the total population. Adjustment for smoking by the female partner increased the odds ratios for male smoking as well. These results indicate that bias may occur in clinic-based fertility studies because of different forms of selection.

fertility; infertility; selection bias; semen; smoking


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
R. Hauser, L. Godfrey-Bailey, and Z. Chen
Does the potential for selection bias in semen quality studies depend on study design? Experience from a study conducted within an infertility clinic
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2005; 20(9): 2579 - 2583.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.