Human Reproduction, Vol. 15, No. 3, 680-686,
March 2000
© 2000 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Results of the American Association of Bioanalysts national proficiency testing programme in andrology
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women's Research Institute, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, Kansas, 2 Sage BioPharma, San Clemente, California and 3 American Association of Bioanalysts Proficiency Testing Service, Brownsville, Texas, USA
Proficiency testing samples for antisperm antibodies (ASAB), sperm count, morphology and vitality were mailed to participating laboratories. The majority participating utilized Immunobead ASAB procedures (81 versus 14% mixed antiglobulin reaction and 5% `other'), and there was 95.6 ± 1.2% agreement on the presence or absence of ASAB. The majority of laboratories utilized manual (79%) versus computer assisted semen analysis (CASA; 15%) methods. Approximately 64% used the haemocytometer and 26% used the Makler counting chambers for manual counts. Coefficients of variation (CV) in sperm counts ranged from 24 to 138%, with CASA displaying lower overall CV (53 ± 8%) than manual methods (80 ± 9%). A wide variation in the reports of percent normal morphology was noted (CVs calculated from arc sin transformed means ranged from 15 to 93%). Participants using American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP) criteria reported sperm morphology values that were clustered in the `normal' range (11 out of 12 samples), while those using strict criteria were clustered in the `abnormal' range (10 out of 12 samples). Good agreement was observed in sperm vitality (overall mean CV = 18%). These data highlight the urgent need for improvement in overall quality of andrology testing and indicate that practical proficiency testing programmes can be made available on a large scale.
Key words: antisperm antibodies/proficiency testing/sperm count/sperm morphology/sperm vitality
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Women's Research Institute, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, 1010 N. Kansas, Wichita, KS 67214, USA
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. Bailey, N. Fenning, S. Chamberlain, L. Devlin, J. Hopkisson, and M. Tomlinson Validation of Sperm Counting Methods Using Limits of Agreement J Androl, May 1, 2007; 28(3): 364 - 373. [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Gao, E.S. Gao, Q. Yang, M. Walker, J.Q. Wu, W.J. Zhou, and S.W. Wen Semen quality in a residential, geographic and age representative sample of healthy Chinese men Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2007; 22(2): 477 - 484. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. B. Boe-Hansen, A. K. Ersboll, and P. Christensen Variability and Laboratory Factors Affecting the Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay in Human Semen J Androl, May 1, 2005; 26(3): 360 - 368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Bjorndahl and C. L. R. Barratt Semen Analysis: Setting Standards for the Measurement of Sperm Numbers J Androl, January 1, 2005; 26(1): 11 - 11. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Tomlinson, J. Turner, G. Powell, and D. Sakkas One-step disposable chambers for sperm concentration and motility assessment: how do they compare with the World Health Organization's recommended methods? Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2001; 16(1): 121 - 124. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|