Literature DB >> 23817502

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

Renata Walczak-Jedrzejowska1, Katarzyna Marchlewska, Elzbieta Oszukowska, Eliza Filipiak, Leszek Bergier, Jolanta Slowikowska-Hilczer.   

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine the degree of compliance of Polish laboratories with World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations, with regard to semen analysis methodology. A survey requesting information about methods of semen analysis was distributed to employees of 55 laboratories. Respondents who had participated in external seminological workshops (31%) were termed certified respondents (CR), the remaining (69%)-non-certified respondents (NCR). Only one laboratory (6%) in the CR group and none in the NCR were compliant with WHO guidelines for methods and equipment used to evaluate seminal volume, sperm motility, concentration, vitality and morphology. Most problems were of volume measurement (weighing method was reported by 17% of CR and 10% of NCR) and staining method for sperm morphology (Papanicolau or Diff-Quik were found in 33% of CR and 23% of NCR). A three- or four-point grading of sperm motility was used by the majority of respondents; however, 17% of CR and 37% of NCR did not use a laboratory counter to tally spermatozoa. Although a haemocytometer method was used by 80% of laboratories in each group, the improved Neubauer chamber was used only by 42% of CR and 19% of NCR. In each group, 24% of laboratories did not perform a vitality test. Procedural errors and the interchangeable utilization of two or even three methods to analyse a given parameter was observed in both groups. The results indicate a need for standardisation of the methods and continuous, unified training in semen analysis in Polish laboratories.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23817502      PMCID: PMC3881642          DOI: 10.1038/aja.2013.48

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Asian J Androl        ISSN: 1008-682X            Impact factor:   3.285


  40 in total

1.  Biological variation of seminal parameters in healthy subjects.

Authors:  C Alvarez; J A Castilla; L Martínez; J P Ramírez; F Vergara; J J Gaforio
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 2.  How reliable are results from the semen analysis?

Authors:  Brooks A Keel
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Particle distribution in low-volume capillary-loaded chambers.

Authors:  Diarmaid H Douglas-Hamilton; Nancy G Smith; Christopher E Kuster; Jan P W Vermeiden; Gary C Althouse
Journal:  J Androl       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb

4.  Capillary-loaded particle fluid dynamics: effect on estimation of sperm concentration.

Authors:  Diarmaid H Douglas-Hamilton; Nancy G Smith; Christopher E Kuster; Jan P W Vermeiden; Gary C Althouse
Journal:  J Androl       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb

5.  External quality control in the andrology laboratory: an experimental multicenter trial.

Authors:  J Neuwinger; H M Behre; E Nieschlag
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 7.329

6.  Influence of three different preparation techniques on the results of human sperm morphology analysis.

Authors:  D Meschede; C Keck; M Zander; T G Cooper; C H Yeung; E Nieschlag
Journal:  Int J Androl       Date:  1993-12

Review 7.  Male infertility.

Authors:  D M de Kretser
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-03-15       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Sperm density measurement: should this be abandoned?

Authors:  D F Badenoch; S J Evans; D J McCloskey
Journal:  Br J Urol       Date:  1989-11

Review 9.  Are sperm counts declining? Or did we just change our spectacles?

Authors:  Allan A Pacey
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 3.285

10.  A quick, reliable staining technique for human sperm morphology.

Authors:  T F Kruger; S B Ackerman; K F Simmons; R J Swanson; S S Brugo; A A Acosta
Journal:  Arch Androl       Date:  1987
View more
  6 in total

1.  An automated smartphone-based diagnostic assay for point-of-care semen analysis.

Authors:  Manoj Kumar Kanakasabapathy; Magesh Sadasivam; Anupriya Singh; Collin Preston; Prudhvi Thirumalaraju; Maanasa Venkataraman; Charles L Bormann; Mohamed Shehata Draz; John C Petrozza; Hadi Shafiee
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 17.956

2.  Accuracy Evaluation of The Depth of Six Kinds of Sperm Counting Chambers for both Manual and Computer-Aided Semen Analyses.

Authors:  Jin-Chun Lu; Ru-Qian Yue; Rui-Xiang Feng; Ling-Zhu Kong; Yuan-Cheng Xu
Journal:  Int J Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-12-23

3.  [Inter-and intra-operator variability in the analysis of semen parameters: results from a quality control program].

Authors:  Salima Daoud; Nozha Chakroun-Feki; Afifa Sellami; Leila Ammar-Keskes; Tarek Rebai
Journal:  Pan Afr Med J       Date:  2016-10-26

4.  Sperm concentration measurement with a disposable counting chamber.

Authors:  Mathilde Lemoine; Xavier Ferraretto; Marie-Astrid Llabador-de Royer; Achraf Benammar; Jacques Darolles; Sylvie Epelboin; Florence Eustache; Catherine Patrat
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2018 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.285

5.  The effect of the staining technique on morphological and morphometric parameters of boar sperm.

Authors:  Magdalena Czubaszek; Katarzyna Andraszek; Dorota Banaszewska; Renata Walczak-Jędrzejowska
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The effect of adjusting settings within a Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis (CASA) system on bovine sperm motility and morphology results.

Authors:  Ciara O'Meara; Emilie Henrotte; Kasia Kupisiewicz; Catherine Latour; Marleen Broekhuijse; Agnes Camus; Lucie Gavin-Plagne; Eli Sellem
Journal:  Anim Reprod       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 1.807

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.