PURPOSE: Results from an external quality control programme for semen analysis carried out in Spain are analysed. METHODS: Quality control materials were distributed and the following seminal parameters were determined: concentration, total motility, progressive motility, rapid progressive motility, morphology and sperm vitality. The between-laboratories coefficients of variation were assessed on different types of quality control material. RESULTS: The majority of participating laboratories utilised manual versus computer-assisted semen analysis methods. Some between-laboratories coefficients of variation ranges were: 20.8-33.8% for concentration (semen pool suspension); 13.9-19.2% for total motility (videotapes); 54.2-70.2% for sperm morphology (strict criteria using stained smears); and 9.8-41.1% for sperm vitality (stained smears). There was an inverse relation between mean percentage of sperm and coefficients of variation between laboratories for sperm motility, morphology and vitality. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the urgent need for improvement in the overall quality of andrology testing.
PURPOSE: Results from an external quality control programme for semen analysis carried out in Spain are analysed. METHODS: Quality control materials were distributed and the following seminal parameters were determined: concentration, total motility, progressive motility, rapid progressive motility, morphology and sperm vitality. The between-laboratories coefficients of variation were assessed on different types of quality control material. RESULTS: The majority of participating laboratories utilised manual versus computer-assisted semen analysis methods. Some between-laboratories coefficients of variation ranges were: 20.8-33.8% for concentration (semen pool suspension); 13.9-19.2% for total motility (videotapes); 54.2-70.2% for sperm morphology (strict criteria using stained smears); and 9.8-41.1% for sperm vitality (stained smears). There was an inverse relation between mean percentage of sperm and coefficients of variation between laboratories for sperm motility, morphology and vitality. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the urgent need for improvement in the overall quality of andrology testing.
Authors: J Auger; F Eustache; B Ducot; T Blandin; M Daudin; I Diaz; S E Matribi; B Gony; L Keskes; M Kolbezen; A Lamarte; J Lornage; N Nomal; G Pitaval; O Simon; I Virant-Klun; A Spira; P Jouannet Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: W Ombelet; E Bosmans; M Janssen; A Cox; M Maes; U Punjabi; V Blaton; J Gunst; G Haidl; E Wouters; C Spiessens; M S Bornman; E Pienaar; R Menkveld; C J Lombard Journal: Arch Androl Date: 1998 Sep-Oct
Authors: Darian D Vernon; Jane E Johnson; Angela M Houwing; H Lee Higdon; William R Boone Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: J Onofre; L Geenen; A Cox; I Van Der Auwera; F Willendrup; E Andersen; R Campo; N Dhont; W Ombelet Journal: Facts Views Vis Obgyn Date: 2021-03-31