Skip to main content

Military Health System

Brief Report: Male Infertility, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2013–2017

Image of Sperm is the male reproductive cell  Photo: iStock. Sperm is the male reproductive cell Photo: iStock

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

BACKGROUND

Infertility, defined as the inability to achieve a successful pregnancy after 1 year or more of unprotected sexual intercourse or therapeutic donor insemination, affects approximately 15% of all couples.1–3 Male infertility is diagnosed when, after testing both partners, reproductive problems have been found in the male.1 A male factor contributes in part or whole to about 50% of cases of infertility.4–6 However, determining the true prevalence of male infertility remains elusive, as most estimates are derived from couples seeking assistive reproductive technology in tertiary care or referral centers, population-based surveys, or high-risk occupational cohorts, all of which are likely to underestimate the prevalence of the condition in the general U.S. population.2,7–12

Infertility in men is typically evaluated using semen analysis to assess sperm concentration, motility, and morphology. The most common causes of male infertility are low sperm production, abnormal sperm function, or problems that affect sperm transport.10 However, the cause of male infertility is unknown (idiopathic male infertility) in up to 40% of cases,7,10 and while many infertile men have oligospermia (low sperm concentrations compared with reference ranges) or azoospermia (the absence of motile sperm in semen), some infertile men have normal sperm concentrations.7 Illness, infection, injury, chronic medical conditions, hormonal disorders, genetic disorders, and lifestyle choices (e.g., heavy alcohol use, smoking, or illicit drug use) also may contribute to male infertility.13 In addition, frequent exposure to certain environmental elements such as high temperatures, toxins, medications, and radiation can adversely affect sperm production and/or sperm function.13 

The current report updates and expands on the findings of the previous MSMR analysis of infertility among active component service men.14 Specifically, the current report summarizes the frequencies, rates, temporal trends, types of infertility, and demographic and military characteristics of infertility among active component service men during 2013–2017.

METHODS

The surveillance period was 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2017. The surveillance population consisted of active component service members of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps who served at any time during the surveillance period. Diagnoses were ascertained from administrative records of all medical encounters of individuals who received care in fixed (i.e., not deployed or at sea) medical facilities of the Military Health System (MHS) or civilian facilities in the purchased care system. These data are maintained in the electronic database of the Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS). 

For surveillance purposes, an incident case of male infertility was defined by a case-defining diagnosis (Table 1) in the first diagnostic position of a record of an inpatient or outpatient medical encounter.15 These cases were then grouped into 5 types of male infertility based on the ICD coding system: male infertility unspecified, azoospermia, oligospermia, other male infertility, and infertility due to extratesticular causes. Infertility due to extratesticular causes (ICD-9) was considered a type of male infertility during 2013–2015 only. Other male infertility was considered a type during 2015–2017 only. 

The incidence date was considered the date of the first hospitalization or outpatient medical encounter that included a case-defining diagnosis of male infertility. An individual could be counted as an incident case of male infertility only once during the surveillance period; service men with a documented diagnosis of infertility prior to the surveillance period were excluded from the analysis. Incidence rates were calculated as incident male infertility diagnoses per 10,000 person-years (p-yrs) and were stratified by infertility type as well as by demographic and military characteristics. To assess the healthcare burden associated with male infertility, medical encounters were analyzed separately. The number of inpatient or outpatient encounters with a case-defining diagnostic code recorded in the primary position and the total number of unique individuals affected were computed for each calendar year in the surveillance period.

RESULTS

During the 5-year surveillance period, a total of 17,542 active component service men received incident diagnoses of male infertility, for a crude overall incidence rate of 32.3 cases per 10,000 p-yrs (Table 2). The majority of incident male infertility cases were unspecified male infertility (71.3%), followed by azoospermia (9.3%), oligospermia (8.2%), other male infertility (6.9%), and infertility due to extratesticular causes (4.2%). Azoospermia (3.0 per 10,000 p-yrs) and oligospermia (2.7 per 10,000 p-yrs) were diagnosed at much lower rates than male infertility, unspecified (23.0 per 10,000 p-yrs).

Compared to their respective counterparts, crude overall rates of incident infertility diagnoses were highest among service men aged 30–34 years (60.1 per 10,000 p-yrs), non-Hispanic blacks (36.5 per 10,000 p-yrs), those who were married (52.1 per 10,000 p-yrs), senior enlisted service men (45.1 per 10,000 p-yrs), those working as pilots/air crew (40.9 per 10,000 p-yrs), and those who had 2 or more prior deployments (44.4 per 10,000 p-yrs). Across the services, overall rates of male infertility diagnoses were highest among Army (38.8 per 10,000 p-yrs) or Air Force members (36.6 per 10,000 p-yrs) and lowest among Marine Corps members (20.2 per 10,000 p-yrs) (Table 2). 

Annual rates of incident diagnoses of total male infertility decreased slightly from 35.2 per 10,000 p-yrs in 2013 to 30.3 per 10,000 p-yrs in 2017 (Figure 1). Rates of diagnoses of male infertility, unspecified showed a steady decrease (35.7%) over the course of the 5-year period from 28.0 per 10,000 p-yrs in 2013 to 18.0 per 10,000 p-yrs in 2017. Annual rates of incident azoospermia diagnoses increased from 2.2 per 10,000 p-yrs in 2013 to 4.3 per 10,000 p-yrs in 2017, while annual rates of incident oligospermia diagnoses were relatively stable during the period. Annual incidence rates of other male infertility diagnoses (ICD-10 only) increased markedly, rising from 1.2 per 10,000 p-yrs in 2015 (first year of use of this diagnostic code) to 5.3 per 10,000 p-yrs in 2017. Annual rates of infertility due to extratesticular causes (ICD-9 only) remained relatively low and stable during 2013–2015 (Figure 1).

Stratification of annual incidence rates of male infertility diagnoses by age group showed that rates among service men aged 30–34 years were consistently higher than rates among those in other age groups (data not shown). During the 5-year surveillance period, annual rates of incident diagnoses of male infertility decreased in each service (Figure 2). During each year of the period, incidence rates of male infertility diagnoses were highest among Army and Air Force members. Annual rates of male infertility diagnoses were intermediate among Navy members and lowest among Marine Corps members. However, compared to their respective counterparts, service men in the Army showed the greatest decrease (16.3%) in male infertility rates over time. Decreases over time in annual rates of incident male infertility diagnoses were seen in all race/ethnicity groups; Hispanic service men showed the greatest decrease over time and those of other/unknown race/ethnicity and non-Hispanic black service men showed the smallest decreases (Figure 3). 

From 2013 through 2017, annual numbers of medical encounters during which male infertility was recorded as a primary (first-listed) diagnosis decreased 21.8% between 2013 and 2017 (Figure 4). Because there was a comparable decrease (21.4%) in the number of individuals affected, the ratio of medical encounters per individual affected remained steady at 1.6 throughout the surveillance period.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

Annual rates of incident diagnoses of total male infertility among active component service men decreased slightly during 2013–2017. The overall trend in annual rates closely reflected and was primarily influenced by the trend in incident diagnoses of unspecified male infertility. Data on trends in the incidence of male infertility in the general U.S. population during a comparable time period were not available at the time of this report, precluding com­parisons to the current results.

Similar to the findings of the 2014 MSMR analysis of incident diagnoses of male infertility among active component service men during 2000–2012, annual rates were consistently higher among service men aged 30–34 years compared to those in other age groups.14 The overall rate of incident diagnoses of male infertility was also highest among non-Hispanic black service men, which is consistent with the findings of the prior MSMR analysis.14 U.S. data on male factor infertility by race/ethnicity are limited in the current literature. In age-adjusted analyses of data from U.S. veterans, Hispanic men had the highest frequency of treatment for male infertility, followed by non-Hispanic black men and non-Hispanic white men.16 However, a 2001 retrospective study using a centralized database of patient records at a single military male infertility clinic found that race did not appear to be a significant factor influencing the prevalence of male infertility (i.e., the racial background of the study population mirrored that of all MHS beneficiaries).17 More recently, in samples of U.S. men seeking infertility evaluation and/or treatment, non-Hispanic blacks were found to have lower mean semen volume, sperm concentration, total sperm count, and total motile sperm than non-Hispanic whites or Hispanics.18–21 

In the current analysis, azoospermia accounted for 9.3% of the incident diagnoses of infertility. This finding is similar to prior literature, which found that 10–15% of all infertile men produce semen devoid of viable sperm.22–24 

The results presented here must be interpreted in light of several important limitations. First, to the extent that some affected service men did not seek care for infertility or sought care outside of the MHS, the counts and rates reported here underestimate the actual counts and rates of male infertility in the active component of the U.S. Armed Forces. Another limitation of the current analysis is related to the implementation of MHS GENESIS, the new electronic health record for the MHS. For 2017, medical data from sites that were using MHS GENESIS are not available in DMSS. These sites include Naval Hospital Oak Harbor, Naval Hospital Bremerton, Air Force Medical Services Fairchild, and Madigan Army Medical Center. Therefore, medical encounter data for individuals seeking care at any of these facilities during 2017 were not included in the analysis. Finally, because incident cases were identified based on the presence of a qualifying ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis code for male infertility recorded during a healthcare encounter, the validity of the results depends upon the accuracy of a physician-assigned diagnosis of male infertility and the resultant diagnostic coding generated by a given encounter. However, a recent claims-based study of 11,068 male patients at a single U.S. institution to assess whether ICD-9 codes accurately identified men with abnormal semen analyses25 found that the specificity of diagnostic coding for azoospermia, oligospermia, infertility due to extratesticular causes, and unspecified male infertility were all greater than 90%. However, sensitivity was not calculated, as not all patients had a documented semen analysis.26

REFERENCES

1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Definitions of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):63.

2. Thonneau P, Marchand S, Tallec A, et al. Incidence and main causes of infertility in a resident population (1,850,000) of three French regions (1988-1989). Hum Reprod. 1991;6(6):811–816.

3. Thoma ME, McLain AC, Louis JF, et al. Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(5):1324–1331.

4. Dupree JM. Insurance coverage for male infertility care in the United States. Asian J Androl. 2016;18(3):339–341. 

5. Hull MG, Glazener CM, Kelly NJ, et al. Population study of causes, treatment, and outcome of infertility. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985;291(6510):1693–1697. 

6. Mehta A, Nangia AK, Dupree JM, Smith JF. Limitations and barriers in access to care for male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(5):1128–1137.

7. Jungwirth A, Giwercman A, Tournaye H, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on male infertility: the 2012 update. Eur Urol. 2012;62(2):324–332.

8. Agarwal A, Mulgund A, Hamada A, Chyatte MR. A unique view on male infertility around the globe. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:37.

9. Martinez G, Daniels K, Chandra A. Fertility of men and women aged 15–44 years in the United States: National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010. Natl Health Stat Report. 2012;(51):1–28.

10. Winters BR, Walsh TJ. The epidemiology of male infertility. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(1):195–204.

11. Alavanja MC, Sandler DP, McMaster SB, et al. The Agricultural Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104(4):362–369.

12. Sallmen M, Sandler DP, Hoppin JA, Blair A, Baird DD. Reduced fertility among overweight and obese men. Epidemiology. 2006;17(5):520–523.

13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive Health. Infertility FAQs. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/. Accessed 28 February 2019.

14. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center. Surveillance snapshot: male infertility, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2000–2012. MSMR. 2014;21(2):13.

15. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch. Surveillance Case Definitions. Male Infertility. https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Combat-Support/Armed-Forces-Health-Surveillance-Branch/Epidemiology-and-Analysis/Surveillance-Case-Definitions. Accessed 28 February 2019. 

16. Meacham RB, Joyce GF, Wise M, Kparker A, Niederberger C. Urologic Diseases in America Project. Male infertility. J Urol. 2007;177(6):2058–2066.

17. Costabile RA, Spevak M. Characterization of patients presenting with male factor infertility in an equal access, no cost medical system. Urology. 2001;58(6):1021–1024.

18. Redmon JB, Thomas W, Ma W, et al. Semen parameters in fertile US men: the Study for Future Families. Andrology. 2013;1(6):806–814.

19. Povey AC, Clyma JA, McNamee R, et al. Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for poor semen quality: a case-referent study. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2799–2806.

20. Walsh TF, Feigenbaum SL, Smith JF, Croughan MS, VanDenEeden SK. Epidemiologic characteristics of men evaluated for infertility in a large, pre-paid insurance plan. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(suppl):S63.

21. Khandwala YS, Zhang CA, Li S, Behr B, Guo D, Eisenberg ML. Racial variation in semen quality at fertility evaluation. Urology. 2017;106:96–102.

22. Eisenberg ML, Lathi RB, Baker VL, Westphal LM, Milki AA, Nangia AK. Frequency of the male infertility evaluation: data from the National Survey of Family Growth. J Urol. 2013;189(3):1030–1034.

23. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with Society for Male Reproduction and Urology. Evaluation of the azoospermic male. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:S74–S77.

24. Gudeloglu A, Parekattil SJ. Update in the evaluation of the azoospermic male. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2013;68(suppl 1):27–34.

25. World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. 4th ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1999.

26. Khandwala YS, Zhang CA, Li S, Cullen MR, Eisenberg ML. Validity of claims data for the identification of male infertility. Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18(9):68.

Annual rates of incident male infertility diagnoses, by infertility type, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2013–2017

Annual rates of incident male infertility diagnoses, by service, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2013–2017

Annual rates of incident male infertility diagnoses, by race/ethnicity group, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2013–2017

Numbers of medical encounters for male infertility and individuals affected, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2013–2017

ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic codes used to identify cases of male infertility in electronic health records, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2013-2017

Incidence counts and rates of male infertility, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2013–2017

You also may be interested in...

MSMR Vol. 29 No. 07 - July 2022

Report
7/1/2022

A monthly publication of the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division. This issue of the peer-reviewed journal contains the following articles: Surveillance trends for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens among U.S. Military Health System Beneficiaries, Sept. 27, 2020 – Oct. 2,2021; Establishment of SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance within the MHS during March 1 – Dec. 31 2020; Suicide behavior among heterosexual, lesbian/gay, and bisexual active component service members in the U.S. Armed Forces; Brief report: Phase I results using the Virtual Pooled Registry Cancer Linkage system (VPR-CLS) for military cancer surveillance.

Recommended Content:

Health Readiness & Combat Support | Public Health | Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Deployed Active and Reserve Component Service Members, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Deployed Active and Reserve Component Service Members, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

As in previous years, among service members deployed during 2021, injury/poisoning, musculoskeletal diseases and signs/symptoms accounted for more than half of the total health care burden during deployment. Compared to garrison disease burden, deployed service members had relatively higher proportions of encounters for respiratory infections, skin diseases, and infectious and parasitic diseases. The recent marked increase in the percentage of total medical encounters attributable to the ICD diagnostic category "other" (23.0% in 2017 to 44.4% in 2021) is likely due to increases in diagnostic testing and immunization associated with the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Non-service Member Beneficiaries of the Military Health System, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Non-service Member Beneficiaries of the Military Health System, 2021

In 2021, mental health disorders accounted for the largest proportions of the morbidity and health care burdens that affected the pediatric and younger adult beneficiary age groups. Among adults aged 45–64 and those aged 65 or older, musculoskeletal diseases accounted for the most morbidity and health care burdens. As in previous years, this report documents a substantial majority of non-service member beneficiaries received care for current illness and injury from the Military Health System as outsourced services at non-military medical facilities.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, reserve component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, reserve component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Hospitalizations, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Hospitalizations, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

The hospitalization rate in 2021 was 48.0 per 1,000 person-years (p-yrs), the second lowest rate of the most recent 10 years. For hospitalizations limited to military facilities, the rate in 2021 was the lowest for the entire period. As in prior years, the majority (71.2%) of hospitalizations were associated with diagnoses in the categories of mental health disorders, pregnancy-related conditions, injury/poisoning, and digestive system disorders.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

In 2021, as in prior years, the medical conditions associated with the most medical encounters, the largest number of affected service members, and the greatest number of hospital days were in the major categories of injuries, musculoskeletal disorders, and mental health disorders. Despite the pandemic, COVID-19 accounted for less than 2% of total medical encounters and bed days in active component service members.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Medical Evacuations out of the U.S. Central and U.S. Africa Commands, Active and Reserve Components, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Medical Evacuations out of the U.S. Central and U.S. Africa Commands, Active and Reserve Components, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

The proportions of evacuations out of USCENTCOM that were due to battle injuries declined substantially in 2021. For USCENTCOM, evacuations for mental health disorders were the most common, followed by non-battle injury and poisoning, and signs, symptoms, and ill-defined conditions. For USAFRICOM, evacuations for non-battle injury and poisoning were most common, followed by disorders of the digestive system and mental health disorders.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Ambulatory Visits, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Ambulatory Visits, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

In 2021, the overall numbers and rates of active component service member ambulatory care visits were the highest of any of the last 10 years. Most categories of illness and injury showed modest increases in numbers and rates. The proportions of ambulatory care visits that were accomplished via telehealth encounters fell to under 15% in 2021, compared to 19% in 2020.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, recruit trainees, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, recruit trainees, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

The Association Between Two Bogus Items, Demographics, and Military Characteristics in a 2019 Cross-sectional Survey of U.S. Army Soldiers

Article
5/1/2022
NIANTIC, CT, UNITED STATES 06.16.2022 U.S. Army Staff Sgt. John Young, an information technology specialist assigned to Joint Forces Headquarters, Connecticut Army National Guard, works on a computer at Camp Nett, Niantic, Connecticut, June 16, 2022. Young provided threat intelligence to cyber analysts that were part of his "Blue Team" during Cyber Yankee, a cyber training exercise meant to simulate a real world environment to train mission essential tasks for cyber professionals. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Matthew Lucibello)

Data from surveys may be used to make public health decisions at both the installation and the Department of the Army level. This study demonstrates that a vast majority of soldiers were likely sufficiently engaged and answered both bogus items correctly. Future surveys should continue to investigate careless responding to ensure data quality in military populations.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Surveillance Snapshot: Tick-borne Encephalitis in Military Health System Beneficiaries, 2012–2021

Article
5/1/2022
iStock—The castor bean tick (Ixoedes ricinus). Credit: Erik Karits

Tick-borne Encephalitis in Military Health System Beneficiaries, 2012–2021. Tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) is a viral infection of the central nervous system that is transmitted by the bite of infected ticks, mostly found in wooded habitats in parts of Europe and Asia

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Evaluation of ICD-10-CM-based Case Definitions of Ambulatory Encounters for COVID-19 Among Department of Defense Health Care Beneficiaries

Article
5/1/2022
SEATTLE, WA, UNITED STATES 04.05.2020 U.S. Army Maj. Neil Alcaria is screened at the Seattle Event Center in Wash., April 5. Soldiers from Fort Carson, Colo., and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash. have established an Army field hospital center at the center in support of the Department of Defense COVID-19 response. U.S. Northern Command, through U.S. Army North, is providing military support to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help communities in need. (U.S. Army photo by Cpl. Rachel Thicklin)

This is the first evaluation of ICD-10-CM-based cased definitions for COVID-19 surveillance among DOD health care beneficiaries. The 3 case definitions ranged from highly specific to a lower specificity, but improved balance between sensitivity and specificity.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Update: Sexually Transmitted Infections, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2013–2021

Article
5/1/2022
This illustration depicts a 3D computer-generated image of a number of drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae bacteria. CDC/James Archer

This report summarizes incidence rates of the 5 most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among active component service members of the U.S. Armed Forces during 2013–2021. In general, compared to their respective counterparts, younger service members, non-Hispanic Black service members, those who were single and other/unknown marital status, and enlisted service members had higher incidence rates of STIs.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Exertional Heat Illness at Fort Benning, GA: Unique Insights from the Army Heat Center

Article
4/1/2022
Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Ryan Adams is being used as an example victim for cooling a heat casualty at the bi-annual hot weather standard operating procedure training aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, N.C., Aug. 24. Adams is demonstrating the "burrito" method used to cool a heat related injury victim. Photo by Pfc. Joshua Grant.

Exertional heat illness (hereafter referred to as heat illness) spans a spectrum from relatively mild conditions such as heat cramps and heat exhaustion, to more serious and potentially life-threatening conditions such as heat injury and exertional heat stroke (hereafter heat stroke).

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Exertional Hyponatremia, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2006–2021

Article
4/1/2022
Marine Corps Cpl. Luis Alicea drinks water after a combat conditioning exercise at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, May 20, 2019. Photo By: Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Jose Gonzalez.

Exertional (or exercise-associated) hyponatremia refers to a low serum, plasma, or blood sodium concentration (below 135 mEq/L) that develops during or up to 24 hours following prolonged physical activity. Acute hyponatremia creates an osmotic imbalance between fluids outside and inside of cells.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report
<< < 1 2 3 4 5  ... > >> 
Showing results 1 - 15 Page 1 of 13
Refine your search
Last Updated: January 09, 2020
Follow us on Instagram Follow us on LinkedIn Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on YouTube Sign up on GovDelivery