ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Association between relative fat mass and sterility in women of reproductive age in the United States: results from the 2013-2018 NHANES.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbial regulators of physiological and reproductive health in women of reproductive age: their local, proximal and distal regulatory roles.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Review
- Associations Between Total and Regional Fat-to-Muscle Mass Ratio with the Prevalence of Infertility: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A major problem that affects women of reproductive age globally is sterility. A new statistic called Relative Fat Mass (RFM) provides an accurate representation of the percentage of total body fat in people. This study aims to investigate the relationship between RFM and sterility in fertility-age American women. Methods: This study employed a cross-sectional design using data collected from NHANES between 2013 and 2018. The association between RFM and sterility was investigated using logistic regression analysis, controlling for a number of variables. The results were more resilient when RFM was transformed into a four-category variable in order to further examine the patterns of the association between different RFM levels and sterility. The dose-response association between RFM and sterility was illustrated using restricted cubic spline (RCS) analysis. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also conducted to assess the robustness and consistency of the results. Results: This study included 3,197 women aged 18-45, consisting of 2,854 non-sterile participants and 343 sterile participants. First, in the fully adjusted model, RFM and the prevalence of sterility had a positive correlation (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.09). When converting RFM from a continuous to a categorical variable, the prevalence of sterility was significantly greater in the highest quartile than in the lowest quartile (OR = 2.59, 95% CI = 1.40-4.82). Furthermore, RFM and sterility prevalence were found to be positively linearly correlated by RCS analysis, with sterility rates sharply increasing as RFM levels rose. The positive correlation between RFM and the frequency of sterility was shown to be constant throughout various populations, according to subgroup analysis across stratified parameters. Finally, sensitivity analysis further confirmed the reliability and consistency of the study's findings. Conclusion: A representative sample of American women of reproductive age showed a positively correlation between RFM and the prevalence of sterility. RFM may help identify women at risk for sterility, and waist circumference management could potentially help lower the risk of sterility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.