The full content will be available shortly. Thank you for your patience!
Johannes C. Prihadi 1, 2, 3
, Antoninus Hengky 4
, Steven Alvianto 5
, Hans Putranata 5
, Pradipta A. Putra 1
, Havian D. Telium 1 
1 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia; 2 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Atma Jaya Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia; 3 Faculty of Medicine, IPB University, Bogor, Indonesia; 4 Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia; 5 Fatima General Hospital, Ketapang Regency, West Kalimantan, Indonesia
*Correspondence: Johannes C. Prihadi. Email: johannes.cansius@atmajaya.ac.id
Several reproductive disorders and infertility issues have been associated with dysbiosis in the reproductive tract. Recent research indicates that addressing this imbalance can lead to improvements in spermatogenesis and sperm quality. A comprehensive search was conducted using databases such as PubMed, EBSCO, ProQuest, and Google Scholar to identify studies relevant to probiotic utilization on sperm quality in idiopathic infertile males. The search strategies included specific medical subject headings and keywords related to “sperm quality,” “male infertility,” and “probiotics.” Random-effect meta-analyses were performed to estimate the effect size. All studies showed significant improvement in = sperm qualities. A total of four studies were included for both qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The data showed significant improvements in sperm concentration, volume, and motility, with standardized mean differences of 1.96 (95% CI: 0.08-3.84, p = 0.04), 1.28 (95% CI: 0.28-2.28, p = 0.01), and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.10-1.67, p = 0.03), respectively. Probiotic supplementation showed promising results in improving sperm quality in males with idiopathic infertility. However, larger-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings, and the mechanisms behind these effects should be further explored.
The full content will be available shortly. Thank you for your patience!
The editorial process consists of 6 stages:
1. Reception of the manuscript (indeterminate, depending on whether the author meets the requirements): its objective is to verify that the manuscript complies with the specifications of these instructions for authors and that the submitted documentation is complete.
2. Initial editorial review (maximum 5 business days): its objective is to corroborate the relevance, timeliness, originality, and scientific contribution of the manuscript, as well as the methodological and statistical soundness of the study. At this time, it will be submitted to an electronic plagiarism detection system. Derived from this, a rejected opinion may be obtained, or it will be sent for review by peer researchers.
3. Review by peer researchers (maximum 30 business days): the opinion of at least two experts in the area in question will be obtained, who will evaluate the technical and methodological aspects of the investigation.
4. Editorial review (maximum 7 business days): its objective is to make a decision based on the opinion of peer reviewers. The opinion can be rejected, major changes, minor changes or accepted. In the case of major or minor changes, it will be submitted again for evaluation by the initial peer reviewers.
5. Final edition (6 weeks): its objective is the technical and linguistic edition (and translation), layout of galleys, DOI assignment, and correction by the author.
6. Advanced publication: All manuscripts will be published ahead of print on the journal’s website as soon as they complete the editing process, until they are incorporated into a final issue of the journal.