Table 1 Comparison of patients’ characteristics, semen analysis results between the groups
From: Effects of adverse semen parameters on total oxidation status and DNA/chromatin integrity
Parameters | Experimental group I (n = 15) | Experimental group II (n = 13) | Experimental group III (n = 13) | Control group (n = 22) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (year) | 33.60 ± 3.44 | 32.92 ± 4.55 | 34.92 ± 3.30 | 33.73 ± 4.1 | 0.657 |
Body mass index (kg/m2) | 24.10 ± 2.6 | 23.32 ± 3.4 | 23.66 ± 3.1 | 24.50 ± 3.2 | 0.716 |
Semen volume (ml) | 3.3 ± 0.3 | 3.6 ± 0.2 | 3.8 ± 0.4 | 3.5 ± 0.3 | 0.82 |
Semen concentration (× 106/ml) | 38.0 ± 4.0 | 38.9 ± 4.4 | 7.8 ± 0.9 | 61.4 ± 6.0 | < 0.001 |
Progressive motile sperm (%) | 37.6 ± 1.9 | 18.3 ± 3.5 | 21.6 ± 2.3 | 38.0 ± 0.8 | < 0.001 |
Non-progressive motile sperm (%) | 12.4 ± 0.7 | 9.6 ± 1.4 | 9.3 ± 1.0 | 11.7 ± 0.6 | 0.04 |
Immotile sperm (%) | 50.0 ± 1.8 | 71.9 ± 4.2 | 69.0 ± 2.9 | 50.1 ± 0.9 | < 0.001 |
Sperm morphology (%) | 2.0 ± 0.1 | 1.8 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 4.0 ± 0.1 | < 0.001 |