Uncertainty of measurement and clinical value of semen analysis: has standardisation through professional guidelines helped or hindered progress?

This article suggests that diagnostic semen analysis has no more clinical value today than it had 25–30 years ago, and both the confusion surrounding its evidence base (in terms of relationship with conception) and the low level of confidence in the clinical setting is attributable to an associated high level of ‘uncertainty’. Consideration of the concept of measurement uncertainty is mandatory for medical laboratories applying for the ISO15189 standard. It is evident that the entire semen analysis process is prone to error every step from specimen collection to the reporting of results and serves to compound uncertainty associated with diagnosis or prognosis. Perceived adherence to published guidelines for the assessment of sperm concentration, motility and morphology does not guarantee a reliable and reproducible test result. Moreover, the high level of uncertainty associated with manual sperm motility and morphology can be attributed to subjectivity and lack a traceable standard. This article describes where and why uncertainty exists and suggests that semen analysis will continue to be of limited value until it is more adequately considered and addressed. Although professional guidelines for good practice have provided the foundations for testing procedures for many years, the risk in following rather prescriptive guidance to the letter is that unless they are based on an overwhelmingly firm evidence base, the quality of semen analysis will remain poor and the progress towards the development of more innovative methods for investigating male infertility will be slow.

[1]  J. Kirkman-Brown,et al.  Evaluation of a disposable plastic Neubauer counting chamber for semen analysis. , 2009, Fertility and sterility.

[2]  J. Grifo,et al.  Isolated teratozoospermia does not affect in vitro fertilization outcome and is not an indication for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. , 2007, Fertility and sterility.

[3]  B. A. Keel,et al.  Results of the American Association of Bioanalysts national proficiency testing programme in andrology. , 2000, Human reproduction.

[4]  Mario Plebani,et al.  Errors in laboratory medicine. , 2002, Clinical chemistry.

[5]  D. Mortimer,et al.  Sperm morphology assessment--historical perspectives and current opinions. , 2001, Journal of andrology.

[6]  R. Foote,et al.  Motility and other characteristics of human sperm can be measured by computer-assisted sperm analysis of samples stained with Hoechst 33342. , 1996, Fertility and sterility.

[7]  Tina Kold Jensen,et al.  Relation between semen quality and fertility: a population-based study of 430 first-pregnancy planners , 1998, The Lancet.

[8]  A. Weaver,et al.  Sperm morphology: classification drift over time and clinical implications. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  R. Weber,et al.  Clinical laboratory evaluation of male subfertility. , 2005, Advances in clinical chemistry.

[10]  G. Hellinga,et al.  Autoantibodies against spermatozoa in sterile men. , 1959, American journal of clinical pathology.

[11]  Guidelines on the application of CASA technology in the analysis of spermatozoa. ESHRE Andrology Special Interest Group. European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. , 1998, Human reproduction.

[12]  N. Dean,et al.  Anti-sperm antibody levels are not related to fertilization or pregnancy rates after IVF or IVF/ICSI. , 2011, Journal of reproductive immunology.

[13]  A. Biggeri,et al.  High variability in results of semen analysis in andrology laboratories in Tuscany (Italy): the experience of an external quality control (EQC) programme , 2013, Andrology.

[14]  A. Ciampi,et al.  Sperm DNA damage is associated with an increased risk of pregnancy loss after IVF and ICSI: systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2008, Human reproduction.

[15]  E. Bosmans,et al.  Semen quality and prediction of IUI success in male subfertility: a systematic review. , 2014, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[16]  G. Clarke,et al.  Automated semen analysis: 'zona pellucida preferred' sperm morphometry and straight-line velocity are related to pregnancy rate in subfertile couples. , 2003, Human reproduction.

[17]  D. Mortimer,et al.  ESHRE special interest group for andrology basic semen analysis course: a continued focus on accuracy, quality, efficiency and clinical relevance. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[18]  M. Tomlinson Is your andrology service up to scratch? , 2010, Human fertility.

[19]  B. A. Keel,et al.  Lack of standardization in performance of the semen analysis among laboratories in the United States. , 2001, Fertility and sterility.

[20]  S. Hillier,et al.  Lack of Impact of Semen Quality on Fertilization in Assisted Conception , 2010, Scottish medical journal.

[21]  B. Depoorter,et al.  The performance of 10 different methods for the estimation of sperm concentration. , 1997, Fertility and sterility.

[22]  M. Tomlinson,et al.  Brief Communication: Assessment and Validation of Nonspermicidal Condoms as Specimen Collection Sheaths for Semen Analysis and Assisted Conception , 2012, Human fertility.

[23]  G C Althouse,et al.  Determining sample size for the morphological assessment of sperm. , 2004, Theriogenology.

[24]  M. Tomlinson,et al.  Sperm quality and its relationship to natural and assisted conception: British Fertility Society Guidelines for practice , 2013, Human fertility.

[25]  P. Feigin,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy of different sperm counting chambers by performing strict counts of photographed beads , 1995, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

[26]  M. Mandrioli,et al.  The use of two density gradient centrifugation techniques and the swim-up method to separate spermatozoa with chromatin and nuclear DNA anomalies. , 2000, Human reproduction.

[27]  D. C. Kieslinger,et al.  Predictive value of sperm morphology and progressively motile sperm count for pregnancy outcomes in intrauterine insemination. , 2016, Fertility and sterility.

[28]  R. Stolla,et al.  Influence of sample preparation, staining procedure and analysis conditions on bull sperm head morphometry using the morphology analyser integrated visual optical system. , 2001, Reproduction in domestic animals = Zuchthygiene.

[29]  S. Rothmann,et al.  Sperm morphology classification: a rational method for schemes adopted by the world health organization. , 2013, Methods in molecular biology.

[30]  J Scott-Wilson,et al.  Book Review: Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction , 1982, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[31]  Linda Z Shi,et al.  Computer-based tracking of single sperm. , 2006, Journal of biomedical optics.

[32]  L. Ramos,et al.  Sperm DNA: organization, protection and vulnerability: from basic science to clinical applications--a position report. , 2010, Human reproduction.

[33]  Tony Pridmore,et al.  Validation of a novel computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) system using multitarget-tracking algorithms. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[34]  S. Mortimer,et al.  Manual methods for sperm motility assessment. , 2013, Methods in molecular biology.

[35]  D. Lamb,et al.  World Health Organization Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm‐Cervical Mucus Interaction, 4th ed. , 2000, Journal of Andrology.

[36]  J P Bonde,et al.  Computer-assisted semen analysis parameters as predictors for fertility of men from the general population. The Danish First Pregnancy Planner Study Team. , 2000, Human reproduction.

[37]  S. Oehninger,et al.  Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. , 1988, Fertility and sterility.

[38]  L. Björndahl The usefulness and significance of assessing rapidly progressive spermatozoa. , 2010, Asian journal of andrology.

[39]  A. Wetzels,et al.  Status of sperm morphology assessment: an evaluation of methodology and clinical value. , 2015, Fertility and sterility.

[40]  S. Glina,et al.  Influence of strict sperm morphology on the results of classic in vitro fertilization. , 2012, International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology.

[41]  A. Loft,et al.  Trends in the use of intracytoplasmatic sperm injection marked variability between countries. , 2008, Human reproduction update.

[42]  K. Bedu-Addo,et al.  Counting sperm does not add up any more: time for a new equation? , 2007, Reproduction.

[43]  Elizabeth Noonan,et al.  World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. , 2010, Human reproduction update.

[44]  D. Armant,et al.  The influence of chamber characteristics on the reliability of sperm concentration and movement measurements obtained by manual and videomicrographic analysis. , 1990, Fertility and sterility.

[45]  A. Kopitar,et al.  Sperm DNA fragmentation and mitochondrial membrane potential combined are better for predicting natural conception than standard sperm parameters. , 2016, Fertility and sterility.

[46]  C. D. De Jonge,et al.  Semen analysis: looking for an upgrade in class. , 2012, Fertility and sterility.

[47]  C. de Jager,et al.  What should it take to describe a substance or product as 'sperm-safe'. , 2013, Human reproduction update.

[48]  J. Wistuba,et al.  Semen analysis: update on clinical value, current needs and future perspectives. , 2013, Reproduction.

[49]  J. Hotaling,et al.  The relationship between isolated teratozoospermia and clinical pregnancy after in vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[50]  Lars Björndahl,et al.  What is normal semen quality? On the use and abuse of reference limits for the interpretation of semen analysis results , 2011, Human fertility.

[51]  M. Tomlinson,et al.  Validation of sperm counting methods using limits of agreement. , 2006, Journal of andrology.

[52]  J W Overstreet,et al.  Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[53]  M. Nijs,et al.  Reprotoxicity of intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer disposables and products: a 4-year survey. , 2009, Fertility and sterility.

[54]  I D Cooke,et al.  Prognostic significance of computerized motility analysis for in vivo fertility. , 1993, Fertility and sterility.

[55]  M Afnan,et al.  Interrelationships between seminal parameters and sperm nuclear DNA damage before and after density gradient centrifugation: implications for assisted conception. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[56]  C. Lombard,et al.  Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. , 1986, Fertility and sterility.

[57]  Mario Plebani,et al.  Exploring the iceberg of errors in laboratory medicine. , 2009, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[58]  X. Sun,et al.  Predictive value of semen parameters in in vitro fertilisation pregnancy outcome , 2009, Andrologia.

[59]  R. Swerdloff,et al.  Limitations of semen analysis as a test of male fertility and anticipated needs from newer tests. , 2014, Fertility and sterility.