Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on November 3, 2009
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/dep383
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
Right arrow Supplementary Data
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Amann, R.P.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Amann, R.P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Opinion

Evaluating testis function non-invasively: how epidemiologist–andrologist teams might better approach this task

R.P. Amann1

Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1683, USA

1 Correspondence address. 909 Centre Ave, No. 123, Ft Collins, CO 80526-2091, USA. Tel: +1-970-226-0682; Email: rpalra62{at}comcast.net

Opinions herein focus on epidemiology-based publications using semen to study testis function, but several have broader applicability. ‘Opinion 1’: authors often fail to write out an explicit question(s) or hypothesis, and to stipulate how measured outcomes will be used to refute or support the hypothesis. Might critical thinking be lax? ‘Opinion 2’: authors often fail to consider the biology underlying a question or hypothesis, and/or which analytical methods really provide meaningful information or should be rejected. ‘Opinion 3’: spermatogenesis cannot be evaluated in a meaningful manner via conventional semen attributes. Quantitative evaluation of spermatogenesis requires a ‘rate attribute’, not provided by number of sperm per milliliter of semen or total number per ejaculate (TSperm). Influence of abstinence interval is under-appreciated. The rate attribute, TSperm per hour of abstinence (TSperm/h), meaningfully estimates sperm production if the abstinence interval is 42–60 h. Most attributes of individual sperm do not reflect quality at spermiation. ‘Opinion 4’: reliance on a single semen sample per subject might hamper detection of the association sought, because an imprecise value might not establish if a subject's testes were dysfunctional or not. ‘Opinion 5’: curve-fitting, to adjust quantitative data, for a sample provided after an abstinence interval falling within a broad range, to a standardized abstinence interval, distorts outcomes for many samples provided after ~60 h abstinence. TSperm values for individuals with good daily sperm production are artifactually low and those for individuals with poor daily sperm production are artifactually high. Hence, it is important to explain the importance of abstinence interval to participants and censor samples outside an acceptable 37–64 h abstinence range.

Key words: critical thinking/evaluating testis function/semen analysis/sperm number per hour of abstinence


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




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.