Semen analysis standardization: Is there any problem in Polish laboratories?

Asian Journal of Andrology

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 616-621

  Walczak Jedrzejowska, Renata ^a   Marchlewska, Katarzyna ^a   Oszukowska, Elzbieta ^a   Filipiak, Eliza ^a   Bergier, Leszek ^b   Slowikowska Hilczer, Jolanta ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF LODZ   (Poland)

^b Diagnostyka Company Ltd   (Poland)

Author keywords

Clinical laboratory; Compliance; Semen analysis; World Health Organization

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEMOCYTOMETER METHOD; HUMAN; LABORATORY TEST; MORPHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; SEMEN ANALYSIS; SPERMATOZOON COUNT; SPERMATOZOON MOTILITY; STAINING; STANDARDIZATION;

ADULT; CELL SURVIVAL; CLINICAL LABORATORY SERVICES; HUMANS; MALE; POLAND; QUALITY CONTROL; SEMEN ANALYSIS; SPERM COUNT; SPERM MOTILITY; SPERMATOZOA;

EID: 84883485732     PISSN: 1008682X     EISSN: 17457262     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/aja.2013.48     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, Nygren KG. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: Potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1506-12
2. Bablok L, Dziadecki W, Szymusik I, Wolczynski S, Kurzawa R et al. Patterns of infertility in Poland-multicenter study. Neuro Endocrinol Lett 2011; 32: 799-804
3. de Kretser DM. Male infertility. Lancet 1997; 349: 787-90
4. Franken DR, Oehninger S. Semen analysis and sperm function testing. Asian J Androl 2012; 14: 6-13
5. Bungum M, Bungum L, Giwercman A. Sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA): A tool in diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Asian J Androl 2011; 13: 69-75
6. Nallella KP, Sharma RK, Aziz N, Agarwal A. Significance of sperm characteristics in the evaluation of male infertility. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 629-34
7. Barratt CL. Semen analysis is the cornerstone of investigation for male infertility. Practitioner 2007; 251: 8-10, 12, 15-7
8. Keel BA. Quality control, quality assurance, and proficiency testing in the andrology laboratory. Arch Androl 2002; 48: 417-31
9. Alvarez C, Castilla JA, Martinez L, Ramirez JP, Vergara F et al. Biological variation of seminal parameters in healthy subjects. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 2082-8
10. 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: 3441-5
11. Castilla JA, Alvarez C, Aguilar J, Gonzalez-Varea C, Gonzalvo MC et al. Influence of analytical and biological variation on the clinical interpretation of seminal parameters. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 847-51
12. WHO. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010
13. Keel BA. How reliable are results from the semen analysis? Fertil Steril 2004; 82: 41-4
14. Pacey AA. Is quality assurance in semen analysis still really necessary? A view from the andrology laboratory. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 1105-9
15. Pacey AA. Are sperm counts declining? Or did we just change our spectacles? Asian J Androl 2013; 15: 187-90
16. Mallidis C, Cooper TG, Hellenkemper B, Lablans M, Uckert F et al. Ten years' experience with an external quality control program for semen analysis. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 611-6.e4
17. Bergier L, Bakalczuk S, Fracki S, Marchlewska K, Piasecka M et al. Semen analysis -The manual method. Standards according to WHO guidelines from 2010, prepared by the Commission for the Medical-Diagnostic Consensus of the Polish Society of Andrology (PTA) with representatives of the Polish Society of Laboratory Diagnostics (PTDL). J Lab Diagn 2010; 46: 161-70. Polish
18. WHO. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999
19. Pike IL. Accreditation and the use of validated/recognised methods to analyse human semen. Reprod Biol 2011; 11(Suppl 3): 5-15
20. WHO. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of the Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992
21. Badenoch DF, Evans SJ, McCloskey DJ. Sperm density measurement: Should this be abandoned? Br J Urol 1989; 64: 521-3
22. Neuwinger J, Behre HM, Nieschlag E. External quality control in the andrology laboratory: An experimental multicenter trial. Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 308-14
23. Keel BA, Stembridge TW, Pineda G, Serafy NT Sr. Lack of standardization in performance of the semen analysis among laboratories in the United States. Fertil Steril 2002; 78: 603-8
24. Pacey AA. Quality assurance and quality control in the laboratory andrology. Asian J Androl 2010; 12: 21-5
25. Brazil C, Swan SH, Drobnis EZ, Liu F, Wang C et al. Standardized methods for semen evaluation in a multicenter research study. J Androl 2004; 25: 635-44
26. Iwamoto T, Nozawa S, Yoshiike M, Hoshino T, Baba K et al. Semen quality of 324 fertile Japanese men. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 760-5
27. Cooper TG, Brazil C, Swan SH, Overstreet JW. Ejaculate volume is seriously underestimated when semen is pipetted or decanted into cylinders from the collection vessel. J Androl 2007; 28: 1-4
28. Matson PL, Myssonski K, Yovich S, Morrison L, Irving J et al. The density of human semen and the validation of weight as an indicator of volume: A multicentre study. Reprod Biol 2010; 10: 141-53
29. Menkveld R, Holleboom CA, Rhemrev JP. Measurement and significance of sperm morphology. Asian J Androl 2011; 13: 59-68
30. Franken DR, Aneck-Hahn N, Lombaard C, Kruger TF. Semenology training programs: 8 years' experience. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 2615-9
31. Yao KS, Zhang XZ,WuY. Assessment of sperm morphology without quality control may be meaningless for clinicians. Asian J Androl 2010; 12: 607-8
32. Ariagno JI, Curi SM, Chenlo P, Repetto HE, PuglieseMNet al. Our experience in sperm morphology assessment. Asian J Androl 2011; 13: 201-2
33. Henkel R, Schreiber G, Sturmhoefel A, Hipler UC, Zermann DH et al. Comparison of three staining methods for the morphological evaluation of human spermatozoa. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 449-55
34. Rothmann SA, Reese AA. Semen analysis: The test techs love to hate. MLO Med Lab Obs 2007; 39: 18-27
35. Kruger TF, Ackerman SB, Simmons KF, Swanson RJ, Brugo SS et al. A quick, reliable staining technique for human sperm morphology. Arch Androl 1987; 18: 275-7
36. Cipak A, Stanic P, Duric K, Serdar TE. Sperm morphology assessment according to WHO and strict criteria: Method comparison and intra-laboratory variability. Biochem Med 2009; 19: 97-4
37. Meschede D, Keck C, Zander M, Cooper TG, Yeung CH et al. Influence of three different preparation techniques on the results of human sperm morphology analysis. Int J Androl 1993; 16: 362-9
38. Oral E, Yetis O, Elibol F, Senol H, Irez T et al. Assessment of human sperm morphology by strict criteria: Comparison of wet preparation versus stained with the modified Diff-Quik method. Arch Androl 2002; 48: 307-14
39. Cooper TG, Hellenkemper B. Method-related estimates of sperm vitality. J Androl 2009; 30: 214-8
40. Tomlinson M, Turner J, Powell G, Sakkas D. One-step disposable chambers for sperm concentration and motility assessment: How do they compare with the World Health Organization's recommended methods? Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 121-4
41. Marchlewska K, Filipiak E, Oszukowska E, Walczak-Jedrzejowska R, Kula K et al. Comparison of the precision in determination of human sperm concentration between an improved Neubauer haematocytometer and Makler counting chamber. Clin Exp Med Lett 2010; 51: 131-4. Polish
42. Spiropoulos J. Computerized semen analysis (CASA): Effect of semen concentration and chamber depth on measurements. Arch Androl 2001; 46: 37-42
43. Douglas-Hamilton DH, Smith NG, Kuster CE, Vermeiden JP, Althouse GC. Capillaryloaded particle fluid dynamics: Effect on estimation of sperm concentration. J Androl 2005; 26: 115-22
44. Douglas-Hamilton DH, Smith NG, Kuster CE, Vermeiden JP, Althouse GC. Particle distribution in low-volume capillary-loaded chambers. J Androl 2005; 26: 107-14
45. Vested A, Ramlau-Hansen CH, Bonde JP, Thulstrup AM, Kristensen SL et al. A comparison of conventional and computer-Assisted semen analysis (CRISMAS software) using samples from 166 young Danish men. Asian J Androl 2011; 13: 453-8
46. Auger J, Eustache F, Ducot B, Blandin T, Daudin M 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: 2360-8