medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2013, Number 11

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2013; 81 (11)

Estimate of the variability in the evaluation of semen analysis

Rivera-Montes AM, Rivera-Gallegos A, Rodríguez-Villasana E, Juárez- Bengoa A, Díaz-Pérez MÁ, Hernández-Valencia M

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 639-644
PDF size: 127.75 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Masculine Infertility diagnosis continues depending in a great number of cases of the analysis of the semen. However, appropriate interpretation of the seminal analysis implies to consider two factors, the dependability of the laboratory and the medical knowledge about the meaning of the seminal alterations.
Objective: Compare the results of the semen analysis among clinical laboratories.
Material and methods: It was used the semen samples of the patients that need a semen analysis for their study. The sample was collected in the biological fluids assessment laboratory (A) and was evaluated the sperm count, morphology and motility. They were distributed to the other laboratories, andrology laboratory (B) and Assisted Reproduction laboratory (C). It was calculated the coefficients of variation intra-observer and inter-observer and descriptive statistics.
Results: It was analyzed 28 semen samples by one technician in laboratory A, one in laboratory B and four in the laboratory C, using the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for reporting sperm count, motility and morphology. There is an inter-laboratory variability of the parameters studied in the sperm morphology with statistical difference (p ‹ 0.001). The observed mean coefficients of variation intraobserver (CVs) were 3.6% for sperm count, 20.3% for motility and 9.4% for sperm morphology. The mean CVs inter- laboratory results were as follows: 25.7% for sperm concentration, 52.2% for sperm motility and 82.6% for sperm morphology.
Conclusions: There is an inter-laboratory variability for the analysis of the semen samples between the 3 laboratories studied for the semen parameters studied


REFERENCES

  1. Kvist U, Bjorndahl L. Manual de análisis básico de semen. Monografía ESHRE; 2004;1-38.

  2. Villanueva CA. Infertilidad Masculina. En: Ginecología y Reproducción Humana, Temas Selectos. Ed. Mexicana; 2006;452-457.

  3. Auger J, Eustace F, Ducot B, Blandin T, Daudin M and Diaz I. Intra and inter individual variability in human sperm concentration, motility and vitality assessment during a workshop involving ten laboratories. Hum Reprod 2000;15:2360-2368.

  4. Guzick DS, Overstreet JW, Factor-Litvak P, Brazil CK, Nakajima ST, Coutifaris C, Carson SA, Cisneros P, Steinkampf MP, Hill JA, Xu D and Vogel DL. National Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network. Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. New Engl J Med 2001;345:1388-1393.

  5. Neuwinger J, Behre H, Nieschlag E. External quality control in the andrology laboratory: an experimental multicenter trial. Fertil Steril 1990;54:308-314.

  6. Hammound AO, Gibson M, Peterson MC, Carrel DT. Effect of sperm preparation techniques by density gradient on intra-individual variation of sperm motility. Arch Androl 2007;53:349-351.

  7. Kruger T, Menkveld R, Satnder F. Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1986;46:1118-1123.

  8. Alvarez C, Castilla JA, Martinez L, Ramirez JP, Vergara F. Biological variation of seminal parameters in healthy subjects. Human Reprod 2003;18:2082-2088.

  9. Coetze K, Kruger TF, Lombrad CJ, et al. Assessment of interlaboratory and intralaboratory sperm morphology readings with the use of Hamilton Thorne Research integrated visual optical system semen analyzer. Fertil Steril 1999;71:80-84.

  10. Mortimer D. Technician training and quality controls aspects. Practical Laboratory Andrology. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1994;337-347.

  11. Keel BA, Quinn P, Schmidt CF Jr, Serafy NT Jr, Serafy NT Sr, Schalue TK. Results of the American Association of Bioanalysts national proficiency testing programme in andrology. Hum Reprod 2000;15:680-686.

  12. Walker RH: Pilot surveys for proficiency testings of semen analysis. Arch Pathol. Lab Med 1992;116:432-434.

  13. Jequier A, Ukombe E. Errors inherent in the perfomance of a routine semen análisis. Br J Urol 1983;55:434-436.

  14. Castilla JA. Control de calidad en el laboratorio de Andrología. Revista Iberoamericana de Fertilidad 2001;18:29- 33.

  15. Dunphy BC, Kay R, Barratt CL. Quality control during the conventional analysis of semen, an essential exercise. J Androl 1989;10:378-385.

  16. Barroso G, Mercan R, Ozgue K. Intra- and inter- laboratory variability in the assessment of sperm morphology by strict criteria: impact of semen preparation, staining techniques and manual versus computerized analysis. Human Reprod 1999;14:2036-2040.

  17. Kruger TF, Coetze K. The role of sperm morphology in assisted reproduction. Human Repro Update 1999;5:172- 178.

  18. Jorgensen N, Auger J, Giwerman A. Semen analysis performed by different laboratory teams: an intervariation study. Int J Androl 1997;20:201-207.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com