External quality assessment of semen analysis in poland;Zewnętrzna ocena jakości badania seminologicznego w Polsce

Ginekologia Polska

Volumn 83, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 835-840

  Jedrzejczak, Piotr ^a   Talarczyk, Joanna ^a   Taszarek Hauke, Grazyna ^a   Berger, Anna ^a   Hauke, Jan ^b   Pawelczyk, Leszek ^a  

^a POZNAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Poland)

^b ADAM MICKIEWICZ UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

Author keywords

EQAP; External quality assessment programmes; Male infertility; Seminal analysis

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MALE; MALE INFERTILITY; POLAND; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; SEMEN ANALYSIS; STANDARD;

CLINICAL LABORATORY TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; INFERTILITY, MALE; MALE; POLAND; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REFERENCE STANDARDS; SEMEN ANALYSIS;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84872503190     PISSN: 00170011     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Rekomendacje dotycza{ogonek}ce diagnostyki i leczenia niepłodności - skrót. Ginekol Pol. 2012, 83, 149-154.
2. Je{ogonek}drzejczak P, Taszarek-Hauke G, Hauke J, [et al.]. Prediction of spontaneous conception based on semen parameters. Int J Androl. 2008, 31, 499-507.
3. Björndahl L. What is normal semen quality? On the use and abuse of reference limits for the interpretation of semen analysis results. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2011, 14, 179-86.
4. Björndahl L. The usefulness and significance of assessing rapidly progressive spermatozoa. Asian J Androl. 2010, 12, 33-35.
5. Cooper T, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, [et al.]. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update. 2010, 16, 231-245.
6. De Jonge C. Semen analysis: looking for an upgrade in class. Fertil Steril. 2012, 97, 260-266.
7. Palacios E, Clavero A, Gonzalvo M, [et al.]. Acceptable variability in external quality assessment programmes for basic semen analysis. Hum Reprod. 2012, 27, 314-322.
8. Kirkwood B, Sterne J. The normal distribution. Essentials of Medical Statistics., Massachusetts: Blackwell Publisching Company, Malden. 2003, 45-49.
9. Björndahl L, Barratt C, Fraser L, [et al.]. ESHRE basic semen analysis courses 1995-1999: immediate beneficial effects of standardized training. Hum Reprod. 2002, 17, 1299-1305.
10. WHO 2010. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Fifth edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Howerton D, Krolak J, Manasterski A, Handsfield J. Proficiency testing performance in US laboratories: results reported to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 1994 through 2006. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010, 134, 751-758.
12. Pike I. Accreditation and the use of validated/recognised methods to analyse human semen. Reprod Biol. 2011, 11, Suppl 3, 5-15.
13. Menkveld R, Holleboom C, Rhemrev J. Measurement and significance of sperm morphology. Asian J Androl. 2011, 13, 59-68.
14. Auger J, Eustache F, Ducot B, [et al.]. Intra- and inter-individual variability in human sperm concentration, motility and vitality assessment during a workshop involving ten laboratories. Hum Reprod. 2000, 15, 2360-2368.
15. Cooper T, Björndahl L, Vreeburg J, Nieschlag E. Semen analysis and external quality control schemes for semen analysis need global standardization. Int J Androl. 2002, 25, 306-311.
16. Katz D, Morales P, Samuels S, Overstreet J. Mechanisms of filtration of morphologically abnormal human sperm by cervical mucus. Fertil Steril. 1990, 54, 513-516.
17. Keel B. Quality control, quality assurance, and proficiency testing in the andrology laboratory. Arch Androl. 2002, 48, 417-431.
18. Riddell D, Pacey A, Whittington K. Lack of compliance by UK andrology laboratories with World Health Organization recommendations for sperm morphology assessment. Hum Reprod. 2005, 20, 3441-3445.