Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Laboratory standards in routine clinical andrology

  • David Mortimer (a1)
Extract

It is a fundamental principle of laboratory tests that they are never entirely free from error. However, understanding the source and extent of such errors is a prerequisite for correct appreciation and interpretation of test results in the diagnostic process. In order to evaluate these errors, quality control (QC) has been introduced into clinical laboratory tests and has become routine practice.

Copyright
Corresponding author
David Mortimer, Sydney IVF, 187 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
References
Hide All
1 Cembrowski, GS, Carey, RN. Laboratory quality management: QC ⇌ QA. Chicago: American Society of Clinical Pathologists, 1989: 1264.
2 Tyler, JPP, Harrison, KL, Crockett, NG. Semen analysis: an Australian survey. Aust J Med Lab Sci 1985; 6: 5961.
3 Carlsen, E, Giwercman, A, Keiding, N, Skakkebæk, NE. Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during the past 50 years. Br Med J 1992; 305: 609–13.
4 Tummon, IS, Mortimer, D. Decreasing quality of semen. Br Med J 1992; 305: 1228–29.
5 Bostofte, E, Serup, J, Rebbe, H. Has the fertility of Danish men declined through the years in terms of semen quality? A comparison of semen qualities between 1952 and 1972. Int J Fertil 1983; 28: 9195.
6 Mortimer, D, Shu, MA, Tan, R, Mortimer, ST. A technical note on diluting semen for the haemocytometric determination of sperm concentration. Hum Reprod 1989; 4: 166–68.
7 Dunphy, BC, Kay, R, Barratt, CLR, Cooke, ID. Quality control during the conventional semen analysis, an essential exercise. J Androl 1989; 10: 378–85.
8 Knuth, UA, Neuwinger, J, Nieschlag, E. Bias to routine semen analysis by uncontrolled changes in laboratory environment – detection by long-term sampling of monthly means for quality control. Int J Androl 1989; 12: 375–83.
9 Cooper, TG, Neuwinger, J, Bahrs, S, Nieschlag, E. Internal quality control of semen analysis. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 172–78.
10 World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction, third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992: 1107.
11 Jequier, AM, Ukombe, EB. Errors inherent in the performance of a routine semen analysis. Br J Urol 1983; 55: 434–36.
12 Neuwinger, J, Behre, HM, Nieschlag, E. External quality control in the andrology laboratory: an experimental multicenter trail. Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 308–14.
13 American Fertility Society. Guidelines for human andrology laboratories. Fertil Steril 1992; 58 (suppl 1): 11S16S.
14 Boyers, SP, Davis, RO, Katz, DF. Automated semen analysis. Curr Probl Obstet Gynecol Fertil 1989; XII (5): 167200.
15 Mortimer, D. Objective analysis of sperm motility and kinematics. In: Keel, BA, Webster, BW eds. Handbook of the laboratory diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1990: 97133.
16 Mortimer, D. Practical laboratory andrology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994: 1393.
17 Davis, RO, Katz, DF. Computer-aided sperm analysis: technology at a crossroads. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 953–55.
18 Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; I: 307–10.
19 Eliasson, R. Standards for investigation of human semen. Andrologie 1971; 3: 4964.
20 Eliasson, R. Analysis of semen. In: Burger, H, de Kretser, D eds. The testis. New York: Raven Press, 1981: 381–99.
21 Belsey, MA, Eliasson, R, Gallegos, AJ, Moghissi, KS, Paulsen, CA, Prasad, MRN. Laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and semen-cervical mucus interaction. Singapore: Press Concern, 1980: 143.
22 World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and semen-cervical mucus interaction, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987: 167.
23 Mortimer, D, Templeton, AA, Lenton, EA, Coleman, RA. The influence of abstinence and ejaculation-to-analysis delay upon semen analysis parameters of suspected infertile men. Arch Androl 1982; 8: 251–56.
24 Zimmerman, SJ, Maude, MB, Moldawer, M. Frequent ejaculation and total sperm count, motility, and form in humans. Fertil Steril 1965; 16: 342–45.
25 Schwartz, D, Laplanche, A, Jouannet, P, David, G. Within-subject variability of human semen in regard to sperm count, volume, total number of spermatozoa and length of abstinence. J Reprod Fertil 1979; 57: 391–95.
26 Heuchel, V, Schwartz, D, Price, W. Within-subject variability and the importance of abstinence period for sperm-count, semen volume and pre-freeze and post-thaw motility. Andrologia 1981; 13: 479–85.
27 Tyler, JPP, Crockett, NG, Driscoll, GL. Studies on human seminal characteristics with frequent ejaculation. I: clinical characteristics. Clin Reprod Fertil 1982; 1: 273–85.
28 Tyler, JPP, Crockett, NG, Driscoll, GL. Studies of human seminal parameters with frequent ejaculation. II: spermatozoal vitality and storage. Clin Reprod Fertil 1982; 1: 287–93.
29 Cooper, TG, Keck, C, Oberdieck, U, Nieschlag, E. Effects of multiple ejaculations after extended periods of sexual abstinence on total, motile and normal sperm numbers, as well as accessory gland secretions, from healthy normal and oligozoospermic men. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 1251–58.
30 Rogers, BJ, Perreault, SD, Bentwood, BJ, McCarville, C, Hale, RW, Soderdahl, DW. Variability in the human-hamster in vitro assay for fertility evaluation. Fertil Steril 1983; 39: 204–11.
31 Cohen, J, Aafjes, JH. Proteolytic enzymes stimulate human spermatozoal motility and in vitro hamster egg penetration. Life Sci 1982; 30: 899904.
32 de Ziegler, D, Cedars, MI, Hamilton, F, Moreno, T, Meldrum, DR. Factors influencing maintenance of sperm motility during in vitro processing. Fertil Steril 1987; 48: 816–20.
33 Smith, KD, Rodriguez-Rigau, LJ, Steinberger, E. Relation between indices of semen analysis and pregnancy rate in infertile couples. Fertil Steril 1977; 28: 1314–19.
34 Bostofte, E, Serup, J, Rebbe, H. Relation between sperm count and semen volume, and pregnancies obtained during a twenty-year follow-up period. Int J Androl 1982; 5: 267–75.
35 Menkveld, R, Van Zyl, JA, Kotze, TJvW. A statistical comparison of three methods for the counting of human spermatozoa. Andrologia 1984; 16: 554–58.
36 Freund, M, Carol, B. Factors affecting haemocytometer counts of sperm concentration in human semen. J Reprod Fertil 8: 149–55.
37 Bostofte, E, Serup, J, Rebbe, H. Relation between number of immobile spermatozoa and pregnancies obtained during a twenty-year follow-up period. Immobile spermatozoa and fertility. Andrologia 1984; 16: 136–40.
38 Bostofte, E, Serup, J, Rebbe, H. Relation between spermatozoa motility and pregnancies obtained during a twenty-year follow-up period. Spermatozoa motility and fertility. Andrologia 1983; 15: 682–86.
39 Dunphy, BC, Li, T-C, Macleod, IC, Barratt, CLR, Lenton, EA, Cooke, ID. The interaction of parameters of male and female fertility in couples with previously unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 824–27.
40 Aitken, RJ, Sutton, M, Warner, P, Richardson, DW. Relationship between the movement characteristics of human spermatozoa and their ability to penetrate cervical mucus and zona-free hamster oocytes. J Reprod Fertil 1985; 73: 441–49.
41 Mortimer, D, Pandya, IJ, Sawers, RS. Relationship between human sperm motility characteristics and sperm penetration into human cervical mucus in vitro. J Reprod Fertil 1986; 78: 93102.
42 Mortimer, D, Shu, MA, Tan, R. Standardization and quality control of sperm concentration and sperm motility counts in semen analysis. Hum Reprod 1986; 1: 299303.
43 Jouannet, P, Ducot, B, Feneux, D, Spira, A. Male factors and the likelihood of pregnancy in infertile couples. I: study of sperm characteristics. Int J Androl 1988; 11: 379–94.
44 Freund, M. Standards for the rating of human sperm morphology: a cooperative study. Int J Fertil 1966; 11 (suppl): 197.
45 Fredricsson, B. Morphologic evaluation of spermatozoa in different laboratories. Andrologia 1979; 11: 5761.
46 Mortimer, D, Leslie, EE, Kelly, RW, Templeton, AA. Morphological selection of human spermatozoa in vivo and in vitro. J Reprod Fertil 1982; 64: 391–99.
47 Menkveld, R, Stander, FSH, Kotze, TJvW, Kruger, TF, Van Zyl, JA. The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod 1990; 5: 586–92.
48 Kruger, TF, Menkveld, R, Stander, FSH, Lombard, CJ, Van der Merwe, JP, Van Zyl, JA, Smith, K. Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1986; 46: 1118–23.
49 Kruger, TF, Acosta, AA, Simmons, KF, Swanson, RJ, Matta, JF, Oehninger, S. Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 112–17.
50 Enginsu, ME, Dumoulin, JCM, Pieters, MHEC, Evers, JLH, Geraedts, JPM. Predictive value of morphologically normal sperm concentration in the medium for in-vitro fertilization. Int J Androl 1993; 16: 113–20.
51 David, G, Bisson, JP, Czyglik, F, Jouannet, P, Gernigon, C. Anomalies morphologiques du spermatozoide humain. (1) Propositions pour un système de classification. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 1975; 4 (suppl 1): 1736.
52 Bostofte, E, Serup, J, Rebbe, H. Interrelations among the characteristics of human semen, and a new system for classification of male fertility. Fertil Steril 1984; 41: 95102.
53 Aitken, RJ, Best, FSM, Richardson, DW, Djahanbakhch, O, Mortimer, D, Templeton, AA, Lees, MM. An analysis of sperm function in cases of unexplained infertility: conventional criteria, movement characteristics and fertilizing capacity. Fertil Steril 1982; 38: 212–21.
54 Rogers, BJ, Bentwood, BJ, van Campen, H, Helmbrecht, G, Soderdahl, D, Hale, RW. Sperm morphology assessment as an indicator of human fertilizing capacity. J Androl 1983; 4: 119–25.
55 Jeulin, C, Feneux, D, Serres, C, Jouannet, P, Guillet-Rosso, F, Belaisch-Allart, J, Frydman, R, Testart, J. Sperm factors related to failure of human in-vitro fertilization. J Reprod Fertil 1986; 76: 735–44.
56 Liu, DY, Baker, HWG. The proportion of human sperm with poor morphology but normal intact acrosomes detected with pisum sativum agglutinin correlates with fertilization in vitro. Fertil Steril 1988; 50: 288–93.
57 Knuth, UA, Yeung, C-H, Nieschlag, E. Computerized semen analysis: objective measurement of semen characteristics is biased by subjective parameter setting. Fertil Steril 1987; 48: 118–24.
58 Mortimer, D, Mortimer, ST. Influence of system parameter settings on human sperm motility analysis using CellSoft. Hum Reprod 1988; 3: 621–25.
59 Davis, RO, Katz, DF. Standardization and comparability of CASA instruments. J Androl 1992; 13: 8186.
60 Kolibianakis, EM, Tarlatzis, BC, Bontis, J, Papadimas, J, Spanos, E, Mantalenakis, S. Evaluation of Hamilton-Thorn automated semen analysis system. Arch Androl 1992; 28: 213–22.
61 Levine, RJ, Mathew, RM, Brown, MH, Hurtt, ME, Bentley, KS, Mohr, KL, Working, PK. Computer-assisted semen analysis: results vary across technicians who prepare videotapes. Fertil Steril 1989; 50: 673–77.
62 Mortimer, D, Goel, N, Shu, MA. Evaluation of the CellSoft automated semen analysis system in a routine laboratory setting. Fertil Steril 1988; 50: 960–68.
63 Vantman, D, Koukoulis, G, Dennison, L, Zinaman, M, Sherins, RJ. Computer-assisted semen analysis: evaluation of method and assessment of the influence of sperm concentration on linear velocity determination. Fertil Steril 1988; 49; 510–15.
64 Knuth, UA, Nieschlag, E. Comparison of computerized semen analysis with the conventional procedure in 322 patients. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 881–85.
65 Neuwinger, J, Behre, HM, Nieschlag, E. Computerized semen analysis with sperm tail detection. Hum Reprod 1990; 5: 719–23.
66 Neuwinger, J, Knuth, UA, Nieschlag, E. Evaluation of the Hamilton-Thorn 2030 motility analyser for routine semen analysis in an infertility clinic. Int J Androl 1990; 13: 100109.
67 Mathur, S. Automated semen analysis [Letter]. Fertil Steril 1989; 52: 343.
68 Chan, SYW, Wang, C, Song, BL, Lo, T, Leung, A, Tsoi, WL, Leung, J. Computer-assisted image analysis of sperm concentration in human semen before and after swim-up separation: comparison with assessment by haemocytometer. Int J Androl 1989; 12: 339–45.
69 Gnatuk, CL, Larrison, MC, Emgberg, JM, Ball, DG. Comparison of CellTrak to manual methods. J Androl 1991; 12 (suppl): P-49-Abstract 99 (Abstract).
70 Davis, RO, Gravance, CG. Standardization of specimen preparation, staining, and sampling methods improves automated sperm-head morphometry analysis. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 412–17.
71 Davis, RO, Thai, DM, Bain, DE, Andrew, JB, Siemers, RJ, Gravance, CG. Accuracy and precision of the CellForm-Human automated sperm morphometry instrument. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 763–69.
72 Ginsburg, KA, Armant, DR. The influence of chamber characteristics on the reliability of sperm concentration and movement measurements obtained by manual and videomicrographic analysis. Fertil Steril 1990; 53: 882.
73 Davis, RO, Katz, DF. Operational standards for CASA instruments. J Androl 1993; 14: 385–94.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Reproductive Medicine Review
  • ISSN: 0962-2799
  • EISSN: 1469-9028
  • URL: /core/journals/reproductive-medicine-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed