Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (21)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barratt, C.L.R.
Right arrow Articles by Cooke, I.D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barratt, C.L.R.
Right arrow Articles by Cooke, I.D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 587-593, 1995
© 1995 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

research-article

Andrology: Clinical value of sperm morphology for in-vivo fertility: comparison between World Health Organization criteria of 1987 and 1992

C.L.R. Barratt1, M. Naeeni2, S. Clements and I.D. Cooke

University Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jessop Hospital for Women Sheffield S3 7RE 2School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sheffield PO Box 547, Sheffield S10 2UN, UK

Correspondence: 1To whom correspondence should be addressed

The World Health Organization (WHO, 1992) has suggested new criteria for scoring sperm morphology. This study compares the clinical value of the new criteria, i.e. classification of a man as fertile or infertile, to those previously established by the WHO (1987). Papanicolaou-stained semen smears from 166 men attending our infertility clinic, whose fertility status was known, were scored using both methods. Using logistic discriminant analysis for compositional data, no difference between these two sets of criteria with respect to predicting pregnancy outcome was observed. The categorization of the abnormalities (head, midpiece, tail) provides no extra clarification. The WHO (1992) cut-off point of 30% for normal forms is not appropriate, as approximately half of the men in the fertile group had a normal sperm morphology below this limit. In conclusion, the present WHO (1992) classification of sperm morphology is of no additional clinical value. Studies on sperm morphology should concentrate on obtaining biological data on, and measurements of, spermatozoa which are functionally active. Only then can the definition of normal be achieved and clinically useful criteria be adopted.

Key words: in-vivo conception/semen analysis/sperm morphology/WHO


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
T. G. Cooper, E. Noonan, S. von Eckardstein, J. Auger, H.W. G. Baker, H. M. Behre, T. B. Haugen, T. Kruger, C. Wang, M. T. Mbizvo, et al.
World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics
Hum. Reprod. Update, November 24, 2009; (2009) dmp048v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J AndrolHome page
L. Ramos, J. C. M. Hendriks, P. Peelen, D. D. M. Braat, and A. M. M. Wetzels
Use of Computerized Karyometric Image Analysis for Evaluation of Human Spermatozoa
J Androl, November 1, 2002; 23(6): 882 - 888.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
R. Menkveld, W. Y. Wong, C. J. Lombard, A. M.M. Wetzels, C. M.G. Thomas, H. M.W.M. Merkus, and R. P.M. Steegers-Theunissen
Semen parameters, including WHO and strict criteria morphology, in a fertile and subfertile population: an effort towards standardization of in-vivo thresholds
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2001; 16(6): 1165 - 1171.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol Hum ReprodHome page
J. C. St John, R. P. Jokhi, and C. L.R. Barratt
Men with oligoasthenoteratozoospermia harbour higher numbers of multiple mitochondrial DNA deletions in their spermatozoa, but individual deletions are not indicative of overall aetiology
Mol. Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2001; 7(1): 103 - 111.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
S. Gunalp, C. Onculoglu, T. Gurgan, T. F. Kruger, and C. J. Lombard
A study of semen parameters with emphasis on sperm morphology in a fertile population: an attempt to develop clinical thresholds
Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2001; 16(1): 110 - 114.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
C. J. De Jonge and C. L.R. Barratt
WHO manual...Who should care?
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 1999; 14(10): 2431 - 2433.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.