The diagnostic and prognostic value of traditional semen parameters

Journal of Andrology

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 588-593

  Tomlinson, Mathew J ^a   Kessopoulou, Efrossini ^b   Barratt, Christopher L R ^a  

^a BIRMINGHAM WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE; HUMAN; MALE INFERTILITY; PARAMETER; PREDICTION; PREGNANCY RATE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; SEMEN ANALYSIS; SPERMATOZOON MOTILITY;

FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMANS; INFERTILITY, MALE; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL; MALE; PROGNOSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; SEMEN;

EID: 0032853075     PISSN: 01963635     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Aitken RJ, Clarkson JS, Hargreave TB, Irvine DS, Wu FC. Analysis of the relationship between defective sperm function and the generation of reactive oxygen species in cases of oligozoospermia. J Androl 1989;10:214-220.
2. Aitken RJ, Irvine DS, Wu FC. Prospective analysis of sperm-oocyte fusion and reactive oxygen species generation as criteria for the diagnosis of infertility. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;64:542-551.
3. Amann RP. Can the fertility potential of a seminal sample be predicted accurately? J Androl 1989;10:89-98.
4. Amnan RP, Hammerstedt H. In vitro evaluation of sperm quality: an opinion. J Androl 1993;14:397-406.
5. Ayala C, Steinberger E, Smith DP. The influence of semen analysis parameters on the fertility potential of infertile couples. J Androl 1996; 17:718-725.
6. Aytoz A, Camus M, Tournaye H, Bonduelle M, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. Outcome of pregnancies after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and the effect of sperm origin and quality on this outcome. Fertil Steril 1998;70:500-505.
7. Barratt CLR. On the accuracy and clinical value of semen laboratory tests. Hum Reprod 1995;10:250-252.
8. Barratt CLR, Clements S, Kessopoulou E. The practice of semen donation today: semen characteristics and fertility tests required for storage of spermatozoa. Hum Reprod (Suppl 2) 1998;13:1-7.
9. Barratt CLR, McLeod ID, Dunphy BC, Cooke ID. Prognostic significance of two putative sperm function tests: hypoosmotic swelling and bovine sperm mucus penetration tests (PenetraK), Hum Reprod 1992;7: 1240-1244.
10. Berg U, Brucker C, Berg FD. Effect of motile sperm count after swimup on outcome of intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 1997;67: 747-750.
11. Bernardini L, Martini E, Geraedts GPM, Hopman AHN, Lanteri S, Conte N, Capitanio GL. Comparison of gonosomal aneuploidy in spermatozoa of normal fertile men and those with severe male factor detected by in-situ hybridization. Mol Hum Reprod 1997;3:431-438.
12. Bonde JP, Ernst E, Jensen TK, Hjollund NH, Kolstad H, Henriksen TB, Scheike T, Giwercman A, Olsen J, Skakkebaek NE. Relation between semen quality and fertility: a population-based study of 430 first-pregnancy planners. Lancet 1998;352:1172-1177.
13. Bonduelle M, Aytoz A, Van Assche E, Devroey P, Liebaers I, Van Steirteghem A. Incidence of chromosomal aberrations in children born after assisted reproduction through intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998a;13:781-782.
14. Bonduelle M, Joris H, Hofmans K, Liebaers I, van Steirteghem A. Mental development of 201 ICSI children at 2 years of age. Lancet 1998b; 351:1553.
15. Bostofte E, Bagger P, Michael A, Stakemann G. Fertility prognosis for infertile memresults of follow up study of semen analysis in infertile men from two different populations evaluated by the Cox regression model. Fertil Steril 1990;54:1100-1106.
16. Bowen JR, Gibson FL, Leslie GI, Saunders D. Medical and developmental outcome at 1 year for children conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Lancet 1998;351:1529-1534.
17. Branigan EF, Estes MA, Muller CH. Advanced semen analysis: a simple screening test to predict intrauterine insemination success. Fertil Steril 1999;71:547-551.
18. Burr RW, Siegberg R, Flaherty SP, Wang X, Matthews CD. The influence of sperm morphology and the number of motile sperm inseminated on the outcome of intrauterine insemination combined with mild ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 1996;65:127-132.
19. Campana A, Sakkas D, Stalberg A, Bianchi PG, Comte I, Pache T, Walker D. Intrauterine insemination: evaluation of the results according to the woman's age, sperm quality, total sperm count per insemination and life table analysis. Hum Reprod 1996;11:732-736.
20. Clements S, Cooke ID, Barratt CLR. Implementing comprehensive quality control in the andrology laboratory. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2096-2106.
21. Coetzee K, Kruger TF, Lombard CJ. Predictive value of normal morphology: a structured review. Hum Reprod Update 1998;4:73-82.
22. Dickey RP, Pyrzak R, Lu PY, Taylor SN, Rye PH. Comparison of the sperm quality necessary for successful intrauterine insemination with World Health Organization threshold values for normal sperm. Fertil Steril 1999;71:684-689.
23. Duncan WW, Glew MJ, Wang X, Flaherty SP, Matthews CD. Prediction of in vitro fertilization rates from semen variables. Fertil Steril 1993; 59:1233-1238.
24. Dunphy BC, Neal LM, Cooke ID. The clinical value of conventional semen analysis. Fertil Steril 1989;51:324-329.
25. Duran EH, Gürgan T, Günalp S, Enginsu ME, Yarali H, Ayhan A. A logistic regression model including DNA status and morphology of spermatozoa for prediction of fertilization in vitro. Hum Reprod 1998; 13:1235-1239.
26. Eggert-Kruse W, Schwarz H, Rohr G, Demirakca T, Tilgen W, Runnebaum B. Sperm morphology assessment using strict criteria and male fertility under in-vivo conditions of conception. Hum Reprod 1996; 11:139-146.
27. Eimers JM, te Velde ER, Gerritse R, Vogelzang ET, Looman CWN, Habbema JDF. The prediction of the chance to conceive in subfertile couples. Fertil Steril 1994;61:44-52.
28. Glazener CMA, Kelly NJ, Weir MJA, David JSE, Cornes JS, Hull MGR. The diagnosis of male infertility-prospective time-specific study of conception rates related to seminal analysis and post-coital spermmucus penetration and survival in otherwise unexplained infertility. Hum Reprod 1987;2:665-671.
29. Guzick DS, Carson SA, Coutifaris C, Overstreet JW, Factor-Litvak P, Steinkampf MP, Hill JA, Mastroianni L, Buster JE, Nakajima ST, Vogel DL, Canfield RE. Efficacy of superovulation and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of infertility. N Engl J Med 1999;340: 177-183.
30. Hargreave TB, Elton RA. Is conventional sperm analysis of any use? Br J Urol 1983;55:774-779.
31. Horvath PM, Bohrer M, Shelden RM, Kemmann E. The relationship of sperm parameters to cycle fecundity in superovulated women under-going intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 1989;52:288-294.
32. Jouannet P, Dicot B, Feneux D, Spira A. Male factors and the likelihood of pregnancy in infertile couples. I. Study of sperm characteristics. Int J Androl 1988;11:379-394.
33. Karabinus DS, Gelety TJ. The impact of sperm morphology evaluated by strict criteria on intrauterine insemination success. Fertil Steril 1997; 67:536-541.
34. Kent-First MG, Kol S, Muallem A, Ofir R, Manor D, Blazer S, First N, Itskovitz-Eldor J. The incidence and possible relevance of Y-linked microdeletions in babies born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and their infertile fathers. Mol Hum Reprod 1996;2:943-950.
35. Kruger TF, Menkveld R, Stander FSH, Lombard CJ, Van der Merwe JP, van Zyl JA, Smith K. Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1986;46:1118-1123.
36. Kupker W, Schulze W, Diedrich K. Ultrastructure of gametes and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: the significance of sperm morphology. Hum Reprod (Suppl 1) 1998;13:99-106.
37. Kurinczuk JJ, Bower C. Birth defects in infants conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection: an alternative interpretation. Br Med J 1997; 315:1260-1265.
38. Liu DY, Baker HWG. The proportion of human sperm with poor morphology but normal intact acrosomes detected with pisum sativum agglutinin correlates with fertilisation in vitro. Fertil Steril 1988;50: 288-293.
39. McDonough PG. Has traditional sperm analysis lost its clinical relevance. Fertil Steril 1997;67:586-587.
40. MacLeod J, Gold RZ. The male factor in infertility and fertility. 11. Spermatozoon counts in 1000 men of known fertility and in 100 cases of infertile marriage. J Urol 1951;66:436-449.
41. Martinez AR, Bernardus RE, Vermeiden JP, Schoemaker J. Basic questions on intrauterine insemination: an update. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1993;48:811-828.
42. Mercan R, Oehninger S, Muasher SJ, Tober JP, Mayer J, Lanzendorf SE. Impact of fertilisation history and semen parameters on ICSI outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998;15:39-45.
43. Monsour RT, Aboulghar MA, Serour GI, Amin YM, Ramzi AM. The effect of sperm parameters on the outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 1995;64:982-986.
44. Nagy ZP, Liu J, Joris H, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Camus M, Derde MC, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. The result of intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not related to any of the three basic sperm parameters. Hum Reprod 1995;10:1123-1129.
45. Ombelet W, Bosmans E, Janssen M, Cox A, Vlasselaer J, Gyselaers W, Vandeput H, Gielen J, Pollet H, Macs M, Steeno O, Kruger T. Semen parameters in a fertile versus subfertile population: a need for change in the interpretation of semen testing. Hum Reprod 1997;12:987-993.
46. Polansky FF, Lamb EJ. Do the results of semen analysis predict future fertility? A survival analysis study. Fertil Steril 1988;49:1059-1065.
47. Sakkas D, Mariethoz E, Manicardi G, Bizzaro D, Bianchi PG, Bianchi U. Origin of DNA damage in ejaculated human spermatozoa. Rev Reprod 1999;4:31-37.
48. Stolwijk AM, Straatman H, Zielhius GA, Jansen CAM, Braat DDM, van Dop PA, Verbeek ALM. External validation of prognostic models for ongoing pregnancy after in-vitro fertilisation. Hum Reprod 1998;13: 3542-3549.
49. Sukcharoen N, Keith J, Irvine DS, Aitken RJ. Prediction of the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) potential of human spermatozoa using sperm function tests: the effect of the delay between testing and IVF. Hum Reprod 1996;11:1030-1034.
50. Sukcharoen N, Sithipravej T, Promviengchai S, Chinpilas V, Boonkasemsanti W. Sperm morphology evaluated by computer (IVOS) cannot predict the fertilisation rate in vitro after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 1998;69:564-568.
51. Tomlinson MJ, Amissah-Arthur JB, Thompson KA, Kasraie JA, Bentick B. Prognostic indicators for intra-uterine insemination: statistical model for IUI success. Hum Reprod 1996;11:1892-1896.
52. Van den Bergh M, Emiliani S, Biramane J, Vannin AS, Englert Y. A first prospective study of the individual straight line velocity of the spermatazoon and its influences on the fertilization rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998;13:3103-3107.
53. Wichmann L, Isola J, Tuohimaa P. Prognostic variables in predicting pregnancy. A prospective follow up study of 907 couples with an infertility problem. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1102-1108.
54. World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction. 3rd ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1992.