Intra- and inter-individual variability in human sperm concentration, motility and vitality assessment during a workshop involving ten laboratories.

The aim of the present study was to assess variability in the evaluation of human sperm concentration, motility and vitality. Technicians and biologists from 10 teams involved in multicentre studies on semen quality attended the same laboratory, each team using its own methods and equipment to analyse the same semen samples. Inter-individual variability was assessed from 17 fresh semen samples of varying quality. Intra-individual variability was assessed from pools of frozen samples for sperm concentration and motility and stained smears for vitality with three blind evaluations by sample and smear. The mean inter-individual coefficients of variation were 22.9, 21.8 and 17.5% for sperm concentration, motility and vitality respectively. There was no statistical difference among participants for sperm concentration assessment, but significant differences for both motility and vitality (both P: < 0.05). The mean intra-individual coefficients of variation were 15.8, 26.2 and 13.1% for sperm concentration, motility and vitality respectively, with marked differences between expert and novice participants: concentration 9.8% versus 28.0%; motility 22.8% versus 33.0%; and vitality 10.0% versus 19.3%. The present data confirm the need for external quality control schemes for diagnostic purposes, and indicate their utmost importance in multicentre studies on semen quality.

[1]  E. Nieschlag,et al.  A technique for standardization and quality control of subjective sperm motility assessments in semen analysis. , 1997, Fertility and sterility.

[2]  A. Pacey,et al.  Workshop report: clinical CASA--the quest for consensus. , 1995, Reproduction, fertility, and development.

[3]  J. Auger.  Evidence for regional differences of semen quality among fertile French men Fédération Française des CECOS , 1997 .

[4]  I. Cooke,et al.  Implementing comprehensive quality control in the andrology laboratory. , 1995, Human reproduction.

[5]  I. Cooke,et al.  Quality control during the conventional analysis of semen, an essential exercise. , 1989, Journal of andrology.

[6]  P. Matson.  Andrology: External quality assessment for semen analysis and sperm antibody detection: results of a pilot scheme , 1995 .

[7]  B. Pintado,et al.  Permeability of boar and bull spermatozoa to the nucleic acid stains propidium iodide or Hoechst 33258, or to eosin: accuracy in the assessment of cell viability. , 2000, Journal of reproduction and fertility.

[8]  E. Nieschlag,et al.  Internal quality control of semen analysis. , 1992, Fertility and sterility.

[9]  Pierre Jouannet,et al.  Decline in Semen Quality among Fertile Men in Paris during the Past 20 Years , 1995 .

[10]  J. Auger,et al.  Factors influencing human sperm kinematic measurements by the Celltrak computer-assisted sperm analysis system. , 1998, Human reproduction.

[11]  N. Keiding,et al.  Semen analysis performed by different laboratory teams: an intervariation study. , 1997, International journal of andrology.

[12]  D. Pinkel,et al.  Assessment of spermatozoal function using dual fluorescent staining and flow cytometric analyses. , 1986, Biology of reproduction.

[13]  S. Swan,et al.  Have sperm densities declined? A reanalysis of global trend data. , 1997, Environmental health perspectives.

[14]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[15]  E. Nieschlag,et al.  Bias to routine semen analysis by uncontrolled changes in laboratory environment--detection by long-term sampling of monthly means for quality control. , 1989, International journal of andrology.

[16]  P. J. Rowe,et al.  WHO Manual for the Standardized Investigation and Diagnosis of the Infertile Couple , 1993 .

[17]  H W Michelmann.  Quality management in the andrology laboratory. , 1997, International journal of andrology.

[18]  N. Keiding,et al.  Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years. , 1992 .

[19]  D. Mortimer,et al.  Standardization and quality control of sperm concentration and sperm motility counts in semen analysis. , 1986, Human reproduction.

[20]  X. Ronot,et al.  Human sperm mitochondrial function related to motility: a flow and image cytometric assessment. , 1989, Journal of andrology.

[21]  K. Berhane,et al.  Re "Have sperm densities declined? A reanalysis of global trend data". , 1998, Environmental health perspectives.

[22]  E. Nieschlag,et al.  Experience with external quality control in spermatology. , 1999, Human reproduction.

[23]  J. Auger,et al.  Evidence for regional differences of semen quality among fertile French men. Fédération Francaise des Centres d'Etude et de Conservation des Oeufs et du Sperme humains. , 1997, Human reproduction.

[24]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[25]  D. Le Lannou,et al.  Effects of chamber depth on the motion pattern of human spermatozoa in semen or in capacitating medium. , 1992, Human reproduction.

[26]  A. Wyrobek.  Methods for evaluating the effects of environmental chemicals on human sperm production. , 1983, Environmental health perspectives.

[27]  D. Mortimer,et al.  Decreasing quality of semen. , 1992, BMJ.

[28]  David Mortimer,et al.  Practical Laboratory Andrology , 1994 .

[29]  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.

[30]  A M Jequier,et al.  Errors inherent in the performance of a routine semen analysis. , 1983, British journal of urology.

[31]  E. Nieschlag,et al.  External quality control in the andrology laboratory: an experimental multicenter trial. , 1990, Fertility and sterility.