Human Reproduction, Vol. 15, No. 11, 2360-2368,
November 2000
© 2000 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Intra- and inter-individual variability in human sperm concentration, motility and vitality assessment during a workshop involving ten laboratories
1 Service de Biologie de la Reproduction-CECOS, Hôpital Cochin, 75014 Paris, France,
2 INSERM U292, CHU de Bicêtre, 94276 Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France,
3 CECOS Aquitaine (Dr J.J.Berjon), Hôpital Pellegrin, 33076 Bordeaux, France,
4 Centre de Stérilité Masculine, CECOS Midi-Pyrénées (Dr L.Bujan), Hôpital La Grave, 31052 Toulouse, France,
5 Unidad de Fertilidad, Procreation Medicamente Asistida, Clinica Marly, Santafe de Bogota, Colombia,
6 CECOS Basse Normandie (Dr A.Sauvalle), CHU Côte de Nacre, 14033 Caen, France,
7 Laboratoire d'Histologie, Faculté de Médecine, Sfax, Tunisia,
8 Centere za andrologico (Dr B.Zorn), Gynekolos
ka klinika, Univerzitetni Klinic
ni Center, Ljubljana, Slovenija,
9 Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, CECOS Lyon (Pr J.F.Guérin), Hôpitaal Edouard Herriot, 69373 Lyo,France,
10 Service d'Anatomie Pathologique, Antenne CECOS (Dr M.Roudier), CHU de Pointre à Pître, 97159 Guadeloupe, France and
11 Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction, CECOS Ouest (Pr D.Le Lannou), Hôpital de l'Hôtel-Dieu, 35000 Rennes, France
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.
Key words: quality control/routine semen analysis
12 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Laboratoire d'Histologie, Biologie de la Reproduction, CECOS, and Groupe d'Etude de la Fertilité Humaine (GREFH), Université Paris V, Pavillon Cassini, Hôpital Cochin, 123 Bd de Port-Royal, 75014 Paris, France. E-mail: jacques.auger{at}cch.ap-hop-paris.fr
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
H.-Y. Zhang, J.-C. Lu, Y.-F. Huang, and N.-Q. Lu Standardization and Quality Control for the Determination of Uric Acid Level in Seminal Plasma Lab Med, January 1, 2009; 40(1): 23 - 26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J.-C. Lu, F. Chen, H.-R. Xu, Y.-F. Huang, and N.-Q. Lu Standardization and Quality Control for Determination of Fructose in Seminal Plasma J Androl, March 1, 2007; 28(2): 207 - 213. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Bungum, P. Humaidan, A. Axmon, M. Spano, L. Bungum, J. Erenpreiss, and A. Giwercman Sperm DNA integrity assessment in prediction of assisted reproduction technology outcome Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2007; 22(1): 174 - 179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C.H. Ramlau-Hansen, A.M. Thulstrup, A.S. Aggerholm, M.S. Jensen, G. Toft, and J.P. Bonde Is smoking a risk factor for decreased semen quality? A cross-sectional analysis Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2007; 22(1): 188 - 196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Bungum, L. Bungum, and P. Humaidan A prospective study, using sibling oocytes, examining the effect of 30 seconds versus 90 minutes gamete co-incubation in IVF Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2006; 21(2): 518 - 523. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Riddell, A. Pacey, and K. Whittington Lack of compliance by UK andrology laboratories with World Health Organization recommendations for sperm morphology assessment Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2005; 20(12): 3441 - 3445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M.S. Jensen, L.M. Mabeck, G. Toft, A.M. Thulstrup, and J.P. Bonde Lower sperm counts following prenatal tobacco exposure Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2005; 20(9): 2559 - 2566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J.A. Castilla, J. Morancho-Zaragoza, J. Aguilar, R. Prats-Gimenez, M.C. Gonzalvo, E. Fernandez-Pardo, C. Alvarez, R. Calafell, and L. Martinez Quality specifications for seminal parameters based on the state of the art Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2005; 20(9): 2573 - 2578. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Brazil, S. H. Swan, E. Z. Drobnis, F. Liu, C. Wang, J. B. Redmon, and J. W. Overstreet Standardized Methods for Semen Evaluation in a Multicenter Research Study J Androl, July 1, 2004; 25(4): 635 - 644. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Brazil, S. H. Swan, C. R. Tollner, C. Treece, E. Z. Drobnis, C. Wang, J. B. Redmon, and J. W. Overstreet Quality Control of Laboratory Methods for Semen Evaluation in a Multicenter Research Study J Androl, July 1, 2004; 25(4): 645 - 656. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Christensen, J. P. Stenvang, and W. L. Godfrey A Flow Cytometric Method for Rapid Determination of Sperm Concentration and Viability in Mammalian and Avian Semen J Androl, March 1, 2004; 25(2): 255 - 264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Eustache and J. Auger Inter-individual variability in the morphological assessment of human sperm: effect of the level of experience and the use of standard methods Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2003; 18(5): 1018 - 1022. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Agarwal, R. K. Sharma, and D. R. Nelson New Semen Quality Scores Developed by Principal Component Analysis of Semen Characteristics J Androl, May 1, 2003; 24(3): 343 - 352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Bjorndahl, C.L.R. Barratt, L.R. Fraser, U. Kvist, and D. Mortimer ESHRE basic semen analysis courses 1995-1999: immediate beneficial effects of standardized training Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2002; 17(5): 1299 - 1305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Auger, F. Eustache, A.G. Andersen, D.S. Irvine, N. Jorgensen, N.E. Skakkebak, J. Suominen, J. Toppari, M. Vierula, and P. Jouannet Sperm morphological defects related to environment, lifestyle and medical history of 1001 male partners of pregnant women from four European cities Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2001; 16(12): 2710 - 2717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. P.T. Rhemrev, R. Menkveld, T. J. Roseboom, F. W.P.C. van Overveld, T. Teerlink, C. Lombard, and J. P.W. Vermeiden The acrosome index, radical buffer capacity and number of isolated progressively motile spermatozoa predict IVF results Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2001; 16(9): 1885 - 1892. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||


