Do sperm and lubricants gel well with each other? A systematic review

Figures & data

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart for the identification and selection of studies investigating vaginal lubricants influence over sperm function in in vivo and in vitro settings.

Table 1. Key findings of 35 OTC lubricants investigated between 1972 to 2022.

Lubricants	Manuscripts	Reference	Key Findings	Type of Semen Samples Tested	Study Note
KY Jelly	10	Agarwal et al. (2008)	Reported statistically significant increase in sperm DNA fragmentation index (16.0 ± 9) against control (14.8 ± 8).	Raw semen sample	KY Jelly was used as a negative control for the sperm motility tests, so no data present for this.
		Anderson et al. (1998)	Reported reduced prog. motil. at 6.25% at all time points (5 to 30 mins), but not statistically significant. Kinematics VCL, VSL, ALH, and BCF were statistically significantly (p < 0.05) reduced against the control at the varying time points. Statistically significantly (p < 0.001) increased osmolality of semen samples after addition (530 ± 2.5 mosmol before vs 600 ± 3.7 mosmol after).	DGC prepared sample
		Frishman et al. (1992)	Reported statistically significant reduction in prog. motil. against control (p < 0.05) at all concentrations except at 12.5% within 1 minute.	Raw semen sample	The study presented a graph but do not indicate the exact values found.
		Goldenberg and White (1975)	The qualitative assessment reported 0+ out of 4+ for motility at 15 mins and 2 hours after treatment.	Raw semen sample
		Kutteh et al. (1996)	Reported statistically significantly reduced mean motility (0%) vs the Hams F-10 (68 ± 6%), the study control, at varying time points. Viability dropped to 62 ± 6% against 72 ± 5% for Control, and osmolality increased to 820 ± 15 mosmol vs control 333 ± 8 mosmol.	Raw semen sample
		Mackenzie and Gellatly (2019)	Reported statistically significant loss of prog. motil. (0% motility) after 60 mins of treatment against itself by 0 mins of incubation. Study did not report differences in vitality against control with the HOS test. Osmolality increased to 1301.7 ± 2.7 mOsm against control 284.3 ± 1.2 mOsm.	DGC prepared sample
		Mowat et al. (2014)	Reported over 70% for progressively motile cells but was statistically significantly less than PreSeed. DNA fragmentation rate was ∼2% but the relationship was not statistically significant against the control (∼0.75%).	DGC prepared sample
		Soriano et al. (2021)	Reported average SMI as 0.83 and was not significantly different to the control (0.88), but after 1 hour incubation at 10% concentration the SMI was 0.69 ± 0.10.	DSUS prepared sample	Authors stated a score of SMI <0.75 is classed 'spermo-toxic’.
		Schoeman and Tyler (1983)	Reported drop in motility after 15 mins and 2 hours of incubations at 2.5%, 5.0% and 10% concentration of testing, however the reduction was not drastic. By 2 hours, 10% of treatment resulted in 71.6% for mean spermatozoa motility against 104.4% mean motility for Control. Similarly, at 2.5% concentration, the mean motility was 105.6% against 108.4% for the Control by 2 hours incubation. No statistical analysis was performed.	Raw semen samples
		Tagatz et al. (1972)	Reported no motile cells found after 15 mins incubation in the 8 normal samples and no viable sperm found in 6 out of 8 samples using Blom staining. 1 sample had 2% of viable cells. After 30 minutes, cells were non-motile and non-viable. In abnormal samples, 10 out of 12 resulted in non-motility and non-viability after 15 mins.	Raw semen samples	Used donors from couples with diagnosed primary or secondary infertility.
PreSeed	8	Abadie and Lambert (2014)	Reported total motility 45.6% without PreSeed vs 44.2% with PreSeed. Forward progression without PreSeed was 47.6% w/o Pre vs 46.1% with PreSeed. Morphology of normal forms was 17.5% for both with PreSeed and without PreSeed conditions.	Raw semen samples
		Agarwal et al. (2008)	Reported no statistically significant difference in sperm motility (64 ± 14%) against control (66 ± 12%); no statistically significant difference in percent DNA fragmentation index (15.5 ± 8) against control (14.8 ± 8).	Raw semen sample
		Agarwal et al. (2013)	Reported no statistical significant differences for motility (57.3 ± 10.6% w/o PreSeed vs 58.6 ± 8.3% w/PreSeed), HOS test (67.1 ± 14.8% w/o PreSeed vs 67.4 ± 10.7% w/PreSeed), viability (58.1 ± 11.7% w/o PreSeed vs 53.3 ± 9.9% w/PreSeed), ROS test (157.5 ± 223.6 RLU/s/M sperm w/o PreSeed vs 115.6 ± 140.9 RLU/s/M sperm w/PreSeed), TAC test (1,936.8 ± 366.2 µM of Trolox w/o PreSeed vs 2,112.7 ± 424 µM of Trolox w/PreSeed) and DNA damage (16.9 ± 7.3% w/o PreSeed vs 17.7 ± 8.8% w/PreSeed).	Raw semen samples
		Mackenzie and Gellatly (2019)	Reported no statistically significant difference in prog. motil. (p > 0.05) over time (0, 10, 30 and 60 mins) and was comparable to the control conditions. Reported no statistically significant difference in cell vitality. Osmolality increased to 287.0 ± 0.6 mOsm from 284.3 ± 1.2 in control.	DGC prepared sample
		Markram et al. (2022)	Reported median forward progression as 1 (non-progressively motile) and statistically significantly reduced vs the Control (raw sample) and egg white at 2–4 hrs incubation period. Progression dropped to 0 after 24 hrs incubation.	Raw semen sample	Followed a Sperm Progression Rating System
		Mowat et al. (2014)	Reported statistically significant higher vitality rate at 91% against other lubricants and the media control, prog. motil. was statistically significantly greater than other lubricants with >85%. DNA fragmentation rate using the SCSA test was at 2% but was not statistically significant against the control (∼0.75%) or other lubricants.	DGC prepared sample
		Sandhu et al. (2014)	Reported no statistically significant decline in total sperm motility after 60 mins (p > 0.229); but there was a minimal and statistically significant reduction (p < 0.01) in progressive sperm motility of 4% and 7% after 30 minutes and 60 minutes, resp.	DGC prepared sample	Examined lubricants in a time-dependent manner and compared within the treatment samples. No control present.
		Vargas et al. (2011)	Reported no statistically significant reduction in the SMI value between 1 hr (SMI = 1.05) and 24 hr (SMI = 0.93) of incubation.	DGC prepared sample	Authors stated a score of SMI <0.75 is classed 'spermo-toxic’.
		Kutteh et al. (2008)	Reported reduced total motility and prog. motil. vs the media control at different time points. By 1 hour, motility was 60% (control) to 47% (PreSeed) and progression was 3+ (control) to 2.5+ (PreSeed).	Raw semen sample
Astroglide	5	Kutteh et al. (2008)	Reported reduced motility (0%) and progression (0) vs the media control for motility (60%) and progression (3+) by 1 hour.	Raw semen sample
		Agarwal et al. (2008)	Reported statistically significant decrease in total motility (2 ± 1%) against control (66 ± 1%).	Raw semen sample
		Frishman et al. (1992)	Reported statistically significant reduction in prog. motil. against control (p < 0.05) at all concentrations within 1 minute.	Raw semen sample	The study did not indicate the exact values other than the graph
		Kutteh et al. (1996)	Reported reduction in mean motility (0%) vs the Hams F-10 control (68 ± 6%) and motility dropped to 0% by 15 minutes. Viability was 0% against 72 ± 5% for control, and osmolality was 1700 ± 38 mosmol vs control 333 ± 8 mosmol.	Raw semen sample
		Sandhu et al. (2014)	Reported statistically significant reduction (p < 0.001) in total and prog. motil. in a time-dependent manner. The motility has dropped below 60% and 50% by 60 minutes incubation for total and prog. motil., respectively.	DGC prepared sample	Examined lubricants in a time-dependent manner and compared within the treatment samples. No control present.
Replens	4	Agarwal et al. (2008)	Reported statistically significant decrease in sperm motility (25 ± 12%) against control (66 ± 12%).	Raw semen sample
		Kutteh et al. (2008)	The authors of the study mention studying the lubricant, however no data was presented against the lubricant.	Raw semen sample
		Kutteh et al. (1996)	Reported reduction in mean motility (0%) vs the Hams F-10 control (68 ± 6%) and motility dropped to 0% by 30 minutes. Viability was 0% against 72 ± 5% for control, and osmolality was 7030 ± 16 mosmol vs control 333 ± 8 mosmol.	Raw semen sample
		Vargas et al. (2011)	Reported loss of motility at 0.83% concentration and at 1 hr incubation SMI was 0.03 that then increased to 0.12 at 24 hrs. Reported as the only lubricant to have decreased the mean pH of the solutions at both 4.15% and 8.3% concentration.	DGC prepared sample	Authors stated a score of SMI <0.75 is classed 'spermo-toxic’.
Olive oil	4	Anderson et al. (1998)	Reported statistically significantly reduced (p < 0.001) prog. motil. at 5 and 15 minutes at 6.25% concentration against control. At 12.5% concentration, no statistically significant difference in percentage prog. motil. against KY Jelly until 5 minutes. Kinematics VCL and VSL were statistically significantly (p < 0.05) reduced against control at varying time points. No change in osmolality in semen after addition.	DGC prepared sample
		Markram et al. (2022)	The reported median forward prog. motil. score was 1 at the 2–4-hour period, and then further dropped to 0 by 24 hours.	Raw semen sample	Followed a Sperm Progression Rating System
		Goldenberg and White (1975)	The qualitative assessment reported 2+ out of 4+ for motility at 15 mins and 3+ at 2 hours after treatment.	Raw semen sample
		Kutteh et al. (1996)	Reported reduction in mean motility (42 ± 3%) vs the Hams F-10 control (68 ± 6). Viability was 70 ± 6% against 72 ± 5% for control, and osmolality was 390 ± 2 mosmol vs control 333 ± 8 mosmol.	Raw semen sample
Baby oil Johnson’s	3	Anderson et al. (1998)	Reported no statistically significant differences in kinematics at 12.5% concentration at varying time points. At 6.25%, prog. motil., VCL, VSL, ALH, and BCF were not statistically significant from the control (p > 0.05) at varying time points. Reported reduced osmolality of semen after the addition but non-significant (422 ± 4.1 mosmol before vs 306 ± 4.9 mosmol after).	DGC prepared sample
		Mowat et al. (2014)	The reported vitality rate was ∼60% and not significant against other lubricants. Whereas prog. motil. was the 2nd highest (>80%) and was statistically greater against lubricants Yes, Forelife and Sylk, but not significantly different than the positive control (80%). The rate of DNA fragmentation was just below 2% and the relationship against other lubricants and control was not significant.	DGC prepared sample
		Sandhu et al. (2014)	Reported statistically significant decrease in total motility (6% drop; p < 0.02) at 60 minutes and in prog. motil. (7% drop; p < 0.001) after 5 minutes against 0 minutes of incubation, but both the total and prog. motil. were >70%.	DGC prepared sample	Examined lubricants in a time-dependent manner and compared within the treatment samples. No control present.
Yes	2	Markram et al. (2022)	The reported median forward prog. motil. score was 0 at all incubation points, and from 24 hours showed 100% immotile. Reported statistically significantly reduced prog. motil. (p < 0.001) in comparison to PreSeed and control.	Raw semen sample	Followed a Sperm Progression Rating System
		Mowat et al. (2014)	The reported vitality rate was approx. 50% (third after Conceive Plus at ∼50% and PreSeed at ∼91%) but not statistically significant against other lubricants. It came third for least progressively motile at just below 60%, and was statistically less than PreSeed, Baby Oil, Culture Oil, Media, Conceive Plus, Maybe Baby and Glycerol. The DNA fragmentation rate was below 2% and the relationship against other lubricants and control was not significant.	DGC prepared sample
Canola oil	2	Kutteh et al. (1996)	Reported increase in mean motility (70 ± 4%) vs the Hams F-10 control (68 ± 6). Viability was 70 ± 6% against 72 ± 5% for control, and osmolality was 378 ± 12 mosmol vs control 333 ± 8 mosmol.	Raw semen sample
		Sandhu et al. (2014)	Reported statistically significant (P = 0.003) decrease in total motility (dropped ∼6%) 30 minutes and in prog. motil. (dropped ∼5%) at 5 minutes against 0 minutes incubation, but total and progressive motility were >70%.	DGC prepared sample	Examined lubricants in a time-dependent manner and compared within the treatment samples. No control present.
KY jelly warming	2	Kutteh et al. (2008)	Reported reduced total motility (0%) and progression (0) vs the media control for total motility (60%) and progression (3+) by 1 hour.	Raw semen sample
		Sandhu et al. (2014)	Reported an immediate and statistically significant (p < 0.001) decline in total and prog. motil. within 5 minutes incubation, and a further decline by 60 minutes. Total motility reached <30% and prog. motil. <20% by 60 minutes incubation.	DGC prepared sample	Examined lubricants in a time-dependent manner and compared within the treatment samples. No control present.
Conceive Plus	2	Mowat et al. (2014)	Reported 2nd highest vitality rate (>70%) that was statistically significantly greater than the remaining lubricants (except for PreSeed and the media control (80%)). Reported 2^nd highest vitality rate after PreSeed that was statistically significantly greater than ForeLife lubricant (p < 0.05), but not statistically different than the control. The DNA fragmentation rate was over 1.5% and non-significant against the control or other lubricants.	DGC prepared sample
		Wilson et al. (2017)	Reported statistically significantly reduced prog. motil. vs control (p < 0.05). No difference between 5 and 20 minutes (13.25%) but it had dropped to 7.15% by 60 minutes and was shown as the second poorest performing lubricant (after Dischem).	Raw semen sample
Egg white	2	Markram et al. (2022)	The reported median forward prog. motil. score was 2 for 2–4 hours of incubation, that dropped to +1 at 24 hours, and then further dropped to 0 by 48 hours and onwards. No significant difference was found between egg-white and Raw control.	Raw semen sample	Followed a Sperm Progression Rating System
		Tulandi and McInnes (1984)	Reported no statistically significant (p > 0.05) change in total and prog. motility at all incubation periods against the control.	Raw semen sample
Alpha-Jeri	1	Goldenberg and White (1975)	The qualitative assessment reported 0+ out of 4+ for motility at 15 mins and 2 hours after treatment.	Raw semen sample
Keri lotion	1	Goldenberg and White (1975)	The qualitative assessment reported 0–1+ out of 4+ for motility at 15 mins and 0+ motility at 2 hours after treatment.	Raw semen sample
Peanut oil	1	Goldenberg and White (1975)	The qualitative assessment reported 3+ out of 4+ for motility at 15 mins and 2 hours after treatment.	Raw semen sample
Safflower oil	1	Goldenberg and White (1975)	The qualitative assessment reported 3+ out of 4+ for motility at 15 mins and 2 hours after treatment.	Raw semen sample
Skin lotion Searle	1	Goldenberg and White (1975)	The qualitative assessment reported 0–1+ out of 4+ for motility at 15 mins and 0+ motility at 2 hours after treatment.	Raw semen sample
Vaseline or Petroleum jelly	1	Goldenberg and White (1975)	The qualitative assessment reported 2–3+ out of 4+ for motility at 15 mins and 3–4+ motility at 2 hours after treatment.	Raw semen sample
Vegetable oil	1	Goldenberg and White (1975)	The qualitative assessment reported 3+ out of 4+ for motility at 15 mins and 2+ at 2 hours after treatment.	Raw semen sample
Touch	1	Kutteh et al. (1996)	Reported decrease in mean motility (10 ± 2%) vs the Hams F-10 control (68 ± 6). Viability was 68 ± 5% against 72 ± 5% for control, and osmolality was 666 ± 13 mosmol vs control 333 ± 8 mosmol.	Raw semen sample
ConceivEase	1	Kutteh et al. (2008)	Reported motility and progression was the most comparable and closest to the media control at all testing time points (ConceivEase: 60% motility & 3.0+ prog., 50% motility & 2.5+ prog., and 33% motility & 2.0+ prog. at 1 hr, 24 hrs, and 72 hrs, resp. Control: 60% motility & 3+ prog., 52% motility & 2.5+ prog., 35% motility & 2+ prog., at 1 hr, 24 hrs, and 72 hrs, resp.).	Raw semen sample
ForeLife fertilitycare lubricant	1	Mowat et al. (2014)	Reported the least vitality rate at 27% and was second least prog. motile cells at 47%. The vitality rate was statistically significant against PreSeed (p < 0.001) and Conceive Plus (p < 0.05), only, whereas the motility rate was statistically significant (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001) against the rest of the lubricants and the media control (80%).	DGC prepared sample
Maybe Baby	1	Mowat et al. (2014)	The reported vitality rate was ∼50% but was not statistically significant against other lubricants or control. Prog. motil. was just below 80% and was statistically greater against lubricants Yes (p < 0.001), and Forelife and Sylk (p < 0.05), but not significantly different than the media control. DNA fragmentation rate was below 2% and was not significant against other lubricants and the control.	DGC prepared sample
Sylk	1	Mowat et al. (2014)	Reported reduced vitality rate at ∼60–70% but not statistically significant against the media control or other lubricants and had statistically significantly reduced prog. motil cells at 31% after treatment against other lubricants and the media control. The DNA fragmentation rate (<2%) was non-statically significant against other lubricants or the control.	DGC prepared sample
Inclear [feminine vaginal cleanser]	1	Park et al. (2014)	Reported no statistically significant differences between Inclear and control at 0 and 30 minutes (p > 0.05) for concentration and motility, however sperm motility was reduced (49.51 ± 18.49 and 44.84 ± 20.52 at 0 and 30 minutes, resp.) against control (56.21 ± 15.80 and 50.62 ± 18.85 at 0 and 30 minutes, resp.).	DGC prepared sample (alternative method)	Whilst the authors do point out that this product is specifically made as a feminine hygiene product to improve pH, odour and minimize irregular discharge for women, they presume the product can also be used as a vaginal lubricant to ‘promote healthy and comfortable sexual activity’ because the product contained glycerine.
KY Jelly sensitive	1	Sandhu et al. (2014)	Reported immediate and statistically significant decline (p < 0.001) in total motility and prog. motil. within 5 minutes incubation, and further decline to 60 minutes.	DGC prepared sample	Examined lubricants in a time-dependent manner and compared within the treatment samples. No control present.
KY Jelly tingling	1	Sandhu et al. (2014)	Reported immediate and statistically significant decline in total and prog. motil. within 5 minutes incubation, and further decline to 60 minutes. By 60 minutes, total motility, and prog. motil. were near negligible levels (∼0%).	DGC prepared sample	Examined lubricants in a time-dependent manner and compared within the treatment samples. No control present.
Mustard oil	1	Sandhu et al. (2014)	Reported no statistically significant effect on total and prog. motil., in which the levels were similar to control (mHTF). Authors noted that mustard oil induced persistent hyperactivation of sperm in all 22 donor samples.	DGC prepared sample	Examined lubricants in a time-dependent manner and compared within the treatment samples. No control present.
Sesame Oil	1	Sandhu et al. (2014)	Reported statistically significant decline (p < 0.05) in total and progressive motility after 5 minutes incubation and the decline continued to 60 minutes incubation.	DGC prepared sample	Examined lubricants in a time-dependent manner and compared within the treatment samples. No control present.
Durex (unspecified)	1	Soriano et al. (2021)	Reported average SMI 0.98 and was not statistically significant different to control.	DSUS prepared sample	Authors stated a score of SMI <0.75 is classed 'spermo-toxic’.
Vaginesil/Vagisil	1	Soriano et al. (2021)	Reported average SMI was 0.02 and was found to be 'toxic’ at all concentrations after 0.5-hour incubation.	DSUS prepared sample	Authors stated a score of SMI <0.75 is classed 'spermo-toxic’.
Velastisa (ISDIN)	1	Soriano et al. (2021)	Reported mean SMI 0.85 and was found 'toxic’ at 10% by 2 hours of incubation (SMI = 0.71).	DSUS prepared sample	Authors stated a score of SMI <0.75 is classed 'spermo-toxic’.
Felis lubricant	1	Vargas et al. (2011)	Reported reduced SMI from 1 hr incubation (SMI = 1.11) to 24 hrs (SMI = 0.52). Increased the mean osmolalities of the solution at 4.15% and 8.3% concentration to 511 mOsm/kg and 734 mOsm/kg.	DGC prepared sample	Authors stated a score of SMI <0.75 is classed 'spermo-toxic’.
Astroglide X	1	Wilson et al. (2017)	Reported statistically significantly reduced prog. motil. vs control (p < 0.05). There was no difference between at 5- and 20-mins incubation for prog. motil. (37.45%), but it declined by 60 minutes (29.10%).	Raw semen sample
Dischem lubricating gel	1	Wilson et al. (2017)	Reported 0% prog. motil. at all timings (5, 20 & 60 mins) that was statistically significant against the control (p < 0.05).	Raw semen sample	Dischem is an online-retail store in South Africa. The authors have discussed 'Dischem Lubricating Gel’ as a water-based lubricant with glycerine, but the exact name of the lubricant was unspecified. And, since the lubricant was water-based containing glycerine, the authors linked the impact was hypo-osmotic swelling with dissolving of the flagellar membrane.
Purity and Elizabeth Anne	1	Wilson et al. (2017)	Reported prog. motil. was close to the control (53.05% and 43.30% at 5 and 20, and 60 minutes respectively) but was statistically significant less (p < 0.05). There was no change in prog. motil. at 5 and 20 mins (42.30 %), but it reduced by 60 mins (31.70%).	Raw semen sample	The authors did not define the exact product used to analyse by Purity and Elizabeth Anne, however they have stated that progressive motility was not significantly detrimental because the lubricant was oil-based.

Where applicable, further information was provided regarding the lubricant and the manuscript. Abbreviations: DGC – density gradient centrifugation; DSUS – direct swim-up from semen; prog. Motil – progressive motility. Note: the units are reported as found in the original manuscript.

Table 2. RAG traffic light system of the 35 OTC lubricant categorized according to what most studies reported their findings on sperm motility.

Lubricants	Total Articles	Positive Findings	Negative Findings
PreSeed	8	6	2
Baby oil Johnson’s	3	3	0
Canola oil	2	2	0
Egg white	2	2	0
KY Jelly	10	3	7
Astroglide	5	0	5
Replens	4	0	3
Olive oil	4	1	3
Yes	2	0	2
KY Jelly Warming	2	0	2
Conceive plus	2	1	1
Alpha-Keri	1
Astroglide X	1
ConceivEase	1
Dischem lubricating gel	1
Durex	1
Felis lubricant	1
ForeLife fertilitycare lubricant	1
Inclear [feminine vaginal cleanser]	1
Keri lotion	1
KY jelly sensitive	1
KY jelly tingling	1
Maybe baby	1
Mustard oil	1
Peanut oil	1
Purity and Elizabeth Anne	1
Safflower oil	1
Sesame oil	1
Skin lotion Searle	1
Sylk	1
Touch	1
Vaginesil/Vagisil	1
Vaseline/Petroleum jelly	1
Vegetable oil	1
Velastisa (ISDIN)	1

Lubricants studied only once were excluded from categorizing as either positive or negative, instead they were placed into Amber as Inconclusive. The reason for this as there is insufficient data to begin making conclusions based on one study alone.

Table 3. Checklist of the publications looking at the OTC lubricants cross-checked against the (Björndahl et al., 2016) guidance when reporting technical methods used when performing a semen analysis.

Study	OTC Lubricant(s) Studied	Cited WHO manual for basic semen analysis	Used WHO manual for post-treatment testing	Motility	Vitality	Morphology	DNA Damage
Abadie and Lambert (2014)	PreSeed	No	No	0 / 7	N/A	0 / 6
Agarwal et al. (2008)	KY Jelly, PreSeed, Astroglide, Replens	WHO 2010	No	0 / 7	N/A	N/A	X
Agarwal et al. (2013)	PreSeed	WHO 2010	WHO 2010	1 / 7	3 / 3	N/A	X
Anderson et al. (1998)	KY Jelly, Olive Oil, Baby Oil	WHO 1992	No	2 / 7	N/A	N/A
(Frishman et al., 1992)	KY Jelly, Astroglide	WHO unspecified	No	0 / 7	N/A	N/A
Goldenberg and White (1975)	KY Jelly, Olive Oil, Alpha-Keri, Keri lotion, Peanut Oil, Safflower Oil, Skin lotion Searle, Vaseline, Vegetable Oil	No	No	0 / 7	N/A	N/A
Kutteh et al. (1996)	KY Jelly, Astroglide, Replens, Olive Oil, Canola Oil, Touch	WHO 1992	No	2 / 7	1 / 3	N/A
Kutteh et al. (2008)	PreSeed, Astroglide, Replens, KY Jelly Warming, ConceivEase	No	No	1 / 7	N/A	N/A
Mackenzie and Gellatly (2019)	KY Jelly, PreSeed	No	WHO 2010	7 / 7	1 / 3	N/A
Markram et al. (2022)	PreSeed, Olive Oil, Yes, Egg White	WHO 2010	WHO 2010	4 / 7	N/A	N/A
Mowat et al. (2014)	KY Jelly, PreSeed, Baby Oil, Yes, Conceive Plus, Forelife, Maybe Baby, Sylk	WHO 2010	WHO 1999	1 / 7	1 / 3	N/A	X
Park et al. (2014)	Inclear feminine cleanser	No	No	0 / 7	N/A	N/A
Sandhu et al. (2014)	PreSeed, Astroglide, Baby Oil, Canola Oil, KY Jelly Warming, KY Jelly Sensitive, KY Jelly Tingling, Mustard Oil, Sesame Oil	WHO 2010	No	1 / 7	N/A	N/A
Soriano et al. (2021)	KY Jelly, Durex, Vagisil, Velastisa (ISDIN)	WHO 2010	No	0 / 7	0 / 3	N/A
Schoeman and Tyler (1983)	KY Jelly	WHO 1980	No	0 / 7	N/A	N/A
Tagatz et al. (1972)	KY Jelly	No	No	0 / 7	1 / 3	N/A
Tulandi and McInnes (1984)	Egg white	No	No	0 / 7	N/A	N/A
Vargas et al. (2011)	PreSeed, Replens, Felis Lubricant	WHO 2010	No	0 / 7	0 / 3	N/A
Wilson et al. (2017)	Conceive Plus, Astroglide X, Dischem lubricating gel, Purity and Elizabeth Anne	WHO 2010	WHO 2010	2 / 7	N/A	N/A

Agarwal, A., Deepinder, F., Cocuzza, M., Short, R. A., & Evenson, D. P. (2008). Effect of vaginal lubricants on sperm motility and chromatin integrity: A prospective comparative study. Fertility and Sterility, 89(2), 375–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.050

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Anderson, L., Lewis, S. E., & McClure, N. (1998). The effects of coital lubricants on sperm motility in vitro. Human Reproduction, 13(12), 3351–3356. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/13.12.3351

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frishman, G. N., Luciano, A. A., & Maier, D. B. (1992). Evaluation of astroglide, a new vaginal lubricant: Effects of length of exposure and concentration on sperm motility. Fertility and Sterility, 58(3), 630–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)55279-0

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Goldenberg, R. L., & White, R. (1975). The effect of vaginal lubricants on sperm motility in vitro. Fertility and Sterility, 26(9), 872–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)41350-6

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kutteh, W. H., Chao, C. H., Ritter, J. O., & Byrd, W. (1996). Vaginal lubricants for the infertile couple: Effect on sperm activity. International Journal of Fertility and Menopausal Studies, 41(4), 400–404.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Mackenzie, S. C., & Gellatly, S. A. (2019). Vaginal lubricants in the couple trying-to-conceive: Assessing healthcare professional recommendations and effect on in vitro sperm function. PLoS One, 14(5), e0209950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209950

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mowat, A., Newton, C., Boothroyd, C., Demmers, K., & Fleming, S. (2014). The effects of vaginal lubricants on sperm function: An in vitro analysis. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 31(3), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0168-x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Soriano, M. J., Botella, I. M., Sadeghi, S., Rios, A. P., Balasch, S., Luján, S., Pellicer, N., & Rubio, J. M. (2021). The use of vaginal lubricants and ultrasound gels can have deleterious effects on sperm function. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences, 14(2), 162–166. https://doi.org/10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_128_18

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Schoeman, M. N., & Tyler, J. P. P. (1983). Effects of surgical lubricants on semen analysis. Clinical Reproduction and Fertility, 2(2), 275–281.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Tagatz, G. E., Okagaki, T., & Sciarra, J. J. (1972). The effect of vaginal lubricants on sperm motility and viability in vitro. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 113(1), 88–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(72)90457-7

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abadie, J. M., & Lambert, H. B. (2014). Effects of lubricants and wash solutions on semen evaluation in a fertility clinic laboratory. Laboratory Medicine, 45(2), 116–119. https://doi.org/10.1309/lm0rxldulfif9tq6

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Agarwal, A., Malvezzi, H., & Sharma, R. (2013). Effect of an isotonic lubricant on sperm collection and sperm quality. Fertility and Sterility, 99(6), 1581–1586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.116

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Markram, J., Griessel, L., Girdler-Brown, B., & Outhoff, K. (2022). Sperm-friendly lubricant: Fact or fiction. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 159(1), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14136

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sandhu, R. S., Wong, T. H., Kling, C. A., & Chohan, K. R. (2014). In vitro effects of coital lubricants and synthetic and natural oils on sperm motility. Fertility and Sterility, 101(4), 941–944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.024

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vargas, J., Crausaz, M., Senn, A., & Germond, M. (2011). Sperm toxicity of "nonspermicidal" lubricant and ultrasound gels used in reproductive medicine. Fertility and Sterility, 95(2), 835–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.011

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kutteh, W. H., Collins, B., Ke, R. W., & Williams, L. J. (2008). Conceivease® fertility-friendly lubricant is superior to other commercial lubricants in preserving sperm motility and sperm progressive motility over 72 hours. Fertility and Sterility, 90(Suppl), S324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1677

 Google Scholar

Wilson, S. L., Adam, J. K., & Krishna, S. B. N. (2017). Effects of vaginal lubricants on in-vitro progressive spermatozoa motility. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 21(3), 96–101. https://doi.org/10.29063/ajrh2017/v21i3.9

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tulandi, T., & McInnes, R. A. (1984). Vaginal lubricants: Effect of glycerin and egg white on sperm motility and progression in vitro. Fertility and Sterility, 41(1), 151–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)47558-8

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Park, D. W., An, J. H., Han, S. C., Lee, J., Lee, H. S., & Seo, J. T. (2014). Effects of feminine cleanser inclear on sperm motility: A prospective study. Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine, 41(4), 165–167. https://doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2014.41.4.165

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Björndahl, L., Barratt, C. L., Mortimer, D., & Jouannet, P. (2016). How to count sperm properly’: Checklist for acceptability of studies based on human semen analysis. Human Reproduction, 31(2), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev305

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.