Multicenter study on reproducibility of sperm morphology assessments

Archives of Andrology

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 103-114

  Ombelet, W ^a   Bosmans, E ^a   Janssen, M ^a   Cox, A ^a   Maes, M ^a   Punjabi, U ^b   Blaton, V ^c   Gunst, J ^c   Haidl, G ^d   Wouters, E ^e   Spiessens, C ^e   Bornman, M S ^f   Pienaar, E ^f   Menkveld, R ^g   Lombard, C J ^h  

^a DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY   (Belgium)

^b ANTWERP UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^c General Hospital St Jan   (Belgium)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BONN   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^f UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA   (South Africa)

^g STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

^h SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Human spermatozoa; Laboratory standardization; Sperm morphology

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CELL STRUCTURE; CLASSIFICATION; FERTILITY; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEMEN ANALYSIS;

EID: 79961176485     PISSN: 01485016     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/01485019808987952     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Altman DG (1991): Some common problems in medical research. In: Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Altman DG (Ed). London: Chapman & Hall, pp 403-405.
2. Baker HWG, Clarke GN (1987): Sperm morphology: consistency of assessment of the same sperm by different observers. Clin Reprod Fertil 5:37-43.
3. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986): Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307-310.
4. Bosmans E, Janssen M, Cox A, Vandeput H, Ombelet W (1991): Morphological characterization of human spermatozoa according to strict criteria: a laboratory evaluation. Hum Reprod (Abstracts from the 7th meeting of ESHRE and the 7th World Congress on IVF and Assisted Procreation), pp 289-290.
5. Chan SYW, Wang C, Chan STH, Ho PC, So WWK, Chan YF, Ma HK (1989): Predictive value of sperm morphology and movement characteristics in the outcome of in vitro fertilization of human oocytes. J Vitro Fertil Embryo Transfer 6:142-148.
6. Cohen J (1960): A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Ed Psychol Meas 20:37-46.
7. Comhaire F, Schoonjans F, Vermeulen L, De Clercq N (1994): Methodological aspects of sperm morphology evaluation: comparison between strict and liberal criteria. Fertil Steril 62:857-861.
8. Cooper TG, Neuwinger J, Bahrs S, Nieschlag E (1992): Internal quality control of semen analysis. Fertil Steril 58:172-178.
9. Davis RO, Bain DE, Siemers RJ, Thal DM, Andrew JB, Gravance CG (1992): Accuracy and precision of the CellForm-Human automated sperm morphometry instrument. Fertil Steril 58:763-769.
10. Davis RO, Gravance CG (1993): Standardization of specimen preparation, staining, and sampling methods improves automated sperm-head morphometry analysis. Fertil Steril 59:412-417.
11. Davis RO, Gravance CG (1994): Consistency of sperm morphology classification methods. J Androl 15:83-91.
12. Davis RO, Gravance CG, Overstreet JW (1995): A standardized test for visual analysis of human sperm morphology. Fertil Steril 63:1058-1063.
13. Dunphy BC, Kay R, Barratt CLR, Cooke ID (1989): Quality control during the conventional analysis of semen, an essential exercise. J Androl 10:378-385.
14. Eliasson R (1971): Standards for investigation of human semen? Andrologie 3:49-64.
15. Fredricsson B (1978): Morphologic evaluation of spermatozoa in different laboratories. Andrologia 11:57-61.
16. Freund M (1966): Standards for the rating of human sperm morphology. Internat J Fertil 11:97-118.
17. Hofmann N, Freundl G, Florack M (1985): Die Formstörungen der Spermatozoen im Sperma und Zervikalschleim als spiegel testikulärer Erkrankungen. Gynäkologe 18:189-192.
18. Hofmann N, Haider SG (1985): Neue Ergebnisse morphologischer Diagnostik der Spermatogenesestörungen. Gynäkologe 18:70-80.
19. Hofmann GE, Santilli BA, Kindig SK, Scott RT Jr, Johnson CA (1996): Intraobserver, interobserver variation of sperm critical morphology: comparison of examiner and computer-assisted analysis. Fertil Steril 65:1021-1025.
20. Jequier AM, Ukombe EB (1983): Errors inherent in the performance of a routine semen analysis. Br J Urol 55:434-436.
21. Kruger T (1995): Computer-assisted sperm analysis systems: morphometric aspects.Hum Reprod 10 (Suppl 1):46-52.
22. Kruger TF, Lacquet FA, Sanchez Sarmiento CA, Menkveld R, Ozgur K, Lombard CJ, Franken DR (1996): A prospective study on the predictive value of normal sperm morphology as evaluated by computer (IVOS*). Fertil Steril 66:285-291.
23. Kruger TF, Menkveld R, Stander FSH, Lombard CJ, Van der Merwe JP, Van Zyl JA, Smith K (1986): Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 46:1118-1123.
24. Matson P (1995): External quality assessment for semen analysis and sperm antibody detection: results of a pilot scheme. Hum Reprod 10:620-625.
25. Menkveld R, Kruger TF (1995): Advantages of strict (Tygerberg) criteria for sperm morphology evaluation. Int J Androl 18 (Suppl 2):36-42.
26. Menkveld R, Stander FSH, Kotze TJW, Kruger TF, Van Zyl JA (1990): The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod 5:586-592.
27. Neuwinger J, Behre HM, Nieschlag E (1990): Computerized semen analysis with sperm tail detection. Hum Reprod 5, 719-723.
28. Oehninger S, Acosta AA, Morshedi M, Veeck L, Swanson RJ, Simmons K, Rosenwaks Z (1988): Corrective measures and pregnancy outcome in in vitro fertilization in patients with severe sperm morphology abnormalities. Fertil Steril 50:283-287.
29. Ombelet W, Bosmans E, Janssen M, Cox A, Vlasselaer J, Gyselaers W, Vandeput H, Gielen J, Pollet H, Maes M, Steeno O, Kruger T (1997): Semen parameters in a fertile versus subfertile population: a need for change in interpretation of semen testing. Hum Reprod 12:987-993.
30. Ombelet W, Cox A, Janssen M, Vandeput H, Bosmans E (1996): Artificial insemination 2: using the husband's sperm. In: Diagnosis and Therapy of Male Factor in Assisted Reproduction. Acosta A A, Kruger T F (Eds.). New York: Parthenon, pp 397-410.
31. Ombelet W, Fourie FLeR, Vandeput H, Bosmans E, Cox A, Janssen M, Kruger T (1994): Teratozoospermia and in-vitro fertilization: a randomized prospective study. Hum Reprod 9:1479-1484.
32. Ombelet W, Menkveld R, Kruger TF, Steeno O (1995): Sperm morphology assessment: historical review in relation to fertility. Hum Reprod Update 1:543-557.
33. Ombelet W, Pollet H, Bosmans E, Vereecken A (1997): Results of a questionnaire on sperm morphology assessment. Hum Reprod 12:1015-1020.
34. Toner JP, Mossad H, Grow DR, Moshedi M, Swanson RJ, Oehninger S (1994): Value of sperm morphology assessed by strict criteria for prediction of the outcome of artificial (intrauterine) insemination. Andrologia 27:143-148.
35. Van Zyl J A, Kotze T JvW, Menkveld R (1990): Predictive value of spermatozoa morphology in natural fertilization. In: Human Spermatozoa in Assisted Reproduction. Acosta AA, Swanson RJ, Ackerman SB, Kruger TF, Van Zyl JA, Menkveld R (Eds). Williams & Wilkons, pp 319-324.
36. World Health Organization (1987): WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
37. World Health Organization (1992): WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction. 3d ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
38. Yovich JL, Matson PL (1995): Male subfertility: concepts in 1995. Hum Reprod 10 (Supp/ 1):3-9.
39. Zaini A, Jennings MG, Baker HWG (1985): Are conventional sperm morphology and motility assessments of predictive value in subfertile men? Int J Androl 8:427-435.