SynthesisScientific reports2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis of astaxanthin efficacy in male infertility: evidence from clinical and preclinical studies.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Astaxanthin (AST), a potent antioxidant carotenoid, has been investigated for its potential to improve male reproductive outcomes; however, findings remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the ability of AST to improve male infertility-related outcomes in both animal models and human clinical trials. A comprehensive search was carried out in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. Eligible studies assessed the effects of AST on semen quality or oxidative stress markers. The risk of bias was assessed via the SYRCLE for animal studies and Cochrane RoB 2.0 for clinical trials. Random- effects models were applied for the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated by the I² statistic, and publication bias via Egger’s test and funnel plots. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria: three clinical trials and seven animal studies. The human meta-analysis showed no statistically significant improvements in any semen parameters compared with placebo, indicating very limited and low-certainty clinical evidence. In contrast, animal studies demonstrated clear and significant improvements in sperm count (MD = 27.15), motility (MD = 11.29%), viability (MD = 15.98%), and morphology (MD = − 6.78%), along with reductions in oxidative stress markers. In conclusion, AST shows clear reproductive benefits in animal models, but our meta-analysis found no significant effects on male semen parameters in humans, and fertility outcomes such as pregnancy rates were not assessed. Therefore, current human evidence does not support clinical efficacy, and future trials should specifically evaluate semen quality and clinically relevant reproductive endpoints.
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.