Semen parameters, including WHO and strict criteria morphology, in a fertile and subfertile population: an effort towards standardization of in-vivo thresholds.

In this study, the semen analysis results of a fertile population were compared with those from a subfertile population, in order to establish normal cut-off values for the standard semen parameters with the aid of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The fertile group comprised healthy males (n = 107) without any history of fertility problems, the partners of whom had had a spontaneous pregnancy within one year of unprotected intercourse and were pregnant at the time of the male's inclusion into the study. A total of 103 males from couples attending the infertility clinic, and with an initial sperm count of <20x10(6)/ml were recruited to form the subfertile population. The best discriminating parameter between the two populations was sperm morphology evaluated according to WHO criteria at a cut-off point of 31% normal spermatozoa. The other cut-off values were at 8% for the acrosome index, 45% for motility, and 4% normal spermatozoa for strict criteria. Recalculating the ROC curve cut-off values based on an assumed 50% prevalence of subfertility in an assisted reproductive setting, the cut-off points were reduced to 21% and 3% normal spermatozoa for WHO and strict criteria respectively. For motility, the new cut-off value was at 20% motile spermatozoa, for motility quality at 3.5 (on a scale of 1-6), the acrosome index at 3% normal acrosomes, and the teratozoospermia index at 2.09.

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

[2]  R Eliasson,et al.  Laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and semen-cervical mucus interaction. , 1980 .

[3]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap. , 1994 .

[4]  J. N. Deshpande,et al.  The male factor in fertility and infertility. , 1959, Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology.

[5]  W. Ombelet,et al.  Sperm morphology assessment: historical review in relation to fertility. , 1995, Human reproduction update.

[6]  R. Menkveld,et al.  The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. , 1990, Human reproduction.

[7]  T. Demirakca,et al.  Sperm morphology assessment using strict criteria and male fertility under in-vivo conditions of conception. , 1996, Human reproduction.

[8]  E. Bosmans,et al.  Multicenter study on reproducibility of sperm morphology assessments. , 1998, Archives of andrology.

[9]  F Schoonjans,et al.  Objective semen analysis: has the target been reached? , 1992, Human reproduction.

[10]  W. Gyselaers,et al.  Semen parameters in a fertile versus subfertile population: a need for change in the interpretation of semen testing , 1997 .

[11]  A. Acosta Human spermatozoa in assisted reproduction , 1990 .

[12]  R. Menkveld,et al.  Acrosomal morphology as a novel criterion for male fertility diagnosis: relation with acrosin activity, morphology (strict criteria), and fertilization in vitro. , 1996, Fertility and sterility.

[13]  F. Comhaire,et al.  Reassessment of the accuracy of traditional sperm characteristics and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in estimating the fertilizing potential of human semen in vivo. , 1987, International journal of andrology.

[14]  I. Cooke,et al.  Clinical value of sperm morphology for in-vivo fertility: comparison between World Health Organization criteria of 1987 and 1992. , 1995, Human reproduction.

[15]  J. Macleod,et al.  STERILITY: THE MALE FACTOR IN FERTILITY AND INFERTILITY. II. SPERMATOZOÖN COUNTS IN 1000 MEN OF KNOWN FERTILITY AND IN 1000 CASES OF INFERTILE MARRIAGE , 1951 .