OBJECTIVE: To determine the precise degree of variability that is represented by the reproducibility and reliability of semen analysis. The general assumption is that semen analyses need to be repeated because of a high degree of within-individual variability. However, the precise degree of variability is not well established in male partners of subfertile couples. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two university hospitals in the Netherlands, which routinely perform two semen analyses in the male partner of subfertile couples. PATIENT(S): Male partners of subfertile couples. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We assessed the test-retest reproducibility, by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV(w)) for five semen parameters. The CV(w) expresses, on a relative scale, the degree of closeness of repeated measurements taken in the same subject. We also estimated the reliability of these semen parameters, in terms of the intraclass correlation coefficient, which expresses the ratio of the between-subject variability over the total variability. RESULT(S): We analyzed the data of 5,240 men and found that the CV(w) of all semen parameters ranged from 28% to 34%. The intraclass correlation coefficients of these semen parameters were moderate to high: volume: 0.70; concentration: 0.89; motility: 0.58; morphology: 0.60; total motile count: 0.73. CONCLUSION(S): This study affirmed the presumed large within-subject variability and the limited reproducibility of semen analyses in subfertile men. Whether this degree of variability within men justifies one or more repetitions of the semen analysis in view of consequences for clinical management should be the topic of future studies. Until then it seems reasonable to perform two semen analyses.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the precise degree of variability that is represented by the reproducibility and reliability of semen analysis. The general assumption is that semen analyses need to be repeated because of a high degree of within-individual variability. However, the precise degree of variability is not well established in male partners of subfertile couples. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two university hospitals in the Netherlands, which routinely perform two semen analyses in the male partner of subfertile couples. PATIENT(S): Male partners of subfertile couples. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We assessed the test-retest reproducibility, by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV(w)) for five semen parameters. The CV(w) expresses, on a relative scale, the degree of closeness of repeated measurements taken in the same subject. We also estimated the reliability of these semen parameters, in terms of the intraclass correlation coefficient, which expresses the ratio of the between-subject variability over the total variability. RESULT(S): We analyzed the data of 5,240 men and found that the CV(w) of all semen parameters ranged from 28% to 34%. The intraclass correlation coefficients of these semen parameters were moderate to high: volume: 0.70; concentration: 0.89; motility: 0.58; morphology: 0.60; total motile count: 0.73. CONCLUSION(S): This study affirmed the presumed large within-subject variability and the limited reproducibility of semen analyses in subfertile men. Whether this degree of variability within men justifies one or more repetitions of the semen analysis in view of consequences for clinical management should be the topic of future studies. Until then it seems reasonable to perform two semen analyses.
Authors: Yu-Han Chiu; Regina Edifor; Bernard A Rosner; Feiby L Nassan; Audrey J Gaskins; Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Paige L Williams; Cigdem Tanrikut; Russ Hauser; Jorge E Chavarro Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-10-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: A Ferlin; A E Calogero; C Krausz; F Lombardo; D Paoli; R Rago; C Scarica; M Simoni; C Foresta; V Rochira; E Sbardella; S Francavilla; G Corona Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Y J Liu; B Vlaeminck; K Tilleman; P Y Chouinard; R Gervais; P De Sutter; V Fievez Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2020-01-18 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Marcy E Richardson; Andreas Bleiziffer; Frank Tüttelmann; Jörg Gromoll; Miles F Wilkinson Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Sara E Pacheco; E Andres Houseman; Brock C Christensen; Carmen J Marsit; Karl T Kelsey; Mark Sigman; Kim Boekelheide Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-06-02 Impact factor: 3.240