Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:27:06.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laboratory standards in routine clinical andrology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2009

David Mortimer
David Mortimer*
Affiliation:
Sydney IVF, Sydney, NSW, Australia
*
David Mortimer, Sydney IVF, 187 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a fundamental principle of laboratory tests that they are never entirely free from error. However, understanding the source and extent of such errors is a prerequisite for correct appreciation and interpretation of test results in the diagnostic process. In order to evaluate these errors, quality control (QC) has been introduced into clinical laboratory tests and has become routine practice.

Type
Articles
Information
Reproductive Medicine Review , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , July 1994 , pp. 97 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cembrowski, GS, Carey, RN. Laboratory quality management: QC ⇌ QA. Chicago: American Society of Clinical Pathologists, 1989: 1–264.Google Scholar
2 Tyler, JPP, Harrison, KL, Crockett, NG. Semen analysis: an Australian survey. Aust J Med Lab Sci 1985; 6: 59–61.Google Scholar
3 Carlsen, E, Giwercman, A, Keiding, N, Skakkebæk, NE. Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during the past 50 years. Br Med J 1992; 305: 609–13.Google Scholar
4 Tummon, IS, Mortimer, D. Decreasing quality of semen. Br Med J 1992; 305: 1228–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Bostofte, E, Serup, J, Rebbe, H. Has the fertility of Danish men declined through the years in terms of semen quality? A comparison of semen qualities between 1952 and 1972. Int J Fertil 1983; 28: 91–95.Google Scholar
6 Mortimer, D, Shu, MA, Tan, R, Mortimer, ST. A technical note on diluting semen for the haemocytometric determination of sperm concentration. Hum Reprod 1989; 4: 166–68.Google Scholar
7 Dunphy, BC, Kay, R, Barratt, CLR, Cooke, ID. Quality control during the conventional semen analysis, an essential exercise. J Androl 1989; 10: 378–85.Google Scholar
8 Knuth, UA, Neuwinger, J, Nieschlag, E. Bias to routine semen analysis by uncontrolled changes in laboratory environment – detection by long-term sampling of monthly means for quality control. Int J Androl 1989; 12: 375–83.Google Scholar
9 Cooper, TG, Neuwinger, J, Bahrs, S, Nieschlag, E. Internal quality control of semen analysis. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 172–78.Google Scholar
10 World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction, third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992: 1–107.Google Scholar
11 Jequier, AM, Ukombe, EB. Errors inherent in the performance of a routine semen analysis. Br J Urol 1983; 55: 434–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Neuwinger, J, Behre, HM, Nieschlag, E. External quality control in the andrology laboratory: an experimental multicenter trail. Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 308–14.Google Scholar
13 American Fertility Society. Guidelines for human andrology laboratories. Fertil Steril 1992; 58 (suppl 1): 11S–16S.Google Scholar
14 Boyers, SP, Davis, RO, Katz, DF. Automated semen analysis. Curr Probl Obstet Gynecol Fertil 1989; XII (5): 167–200.Google Scholar
15 Mortimer, D. Objective analysis of sperm motility and kinematics. In: Keel, BA, Webster, BW eds. Handbook of the laboratory diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1990: 97–133.Google Scholar
16 Mortimer, D. Practical laboratory andrology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994: 1–393.Google Scholar
17 Davis, RO, Katz, DF. Computer-aided sperm analysis: technology at a crossroads. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 953–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; I: 307–10.Google Scholar
19 Eliasson, R. Standards for investigation of human semen. Andrologie 1971; 3: 49–64.Google Scholar
20 Eliasson, R. Analysis of semen. In: Burger, H, de Kretser, D eds. The testis. New York: Raven Press, 1981: 381–99.Google Scholar
21 Belsey, MA, Eliasson, R, Gallegos, AJ, Moghissi, KS, Paulsen, CA, Prasad, MRN. Laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and semen-cervical mucus interaction. Singapore: Press Concern, 1980: 1–43.Google Scholar
22 World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and semen-cervical mucus interaction, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987: 1–67.Google Scholar
23 Mortimer, D, Templeton, AA, Lenton, EA, Coleman, RA. The influence of abstinence and ejaculation-to-analysis delay upon semen analysis parameters of suspected infertile men. Arch Androl 1982; 8: 251–56.Google Scholar
24 Zimmerman, SJ, Maude, MB, Moldawer, M. Frequent ejaculation and total sperm count, motility, and form in humans. Fertil Steril 1965; 16: 342–45.Google Scholar
25 Schwartz, D, Laplanche, A, Jouannet, P, David, G. Within-subject variability of human semen in regard to sperm count, volume, total number of spermatozoa and length of abstinence. J Reprod Fertil 1979; 57: 391–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26 Heuchel, V, Schwartz, D, Price, W. Within-subject variability and the importance of abstinence period for sperm-count, semen volume and pre-freeze and post-thaw motility. Andrologia 1981; 13: 479–85.Google Scholar
27 Tyler, JPP, Crockett, NG, Driscoll, GL. Studies on human seminal characteristics with frequent ejaculation. I: clinical characteristics. Clin Reprod Fertil 1982; 1: 273–85.Google Scholar
28 Tyler, JPP, Crockett, NG, Driscoll, GL. Studies of human seminal parameters with frequent ejaculation. II: spermatozoal vitality and storage. Clin Reprod Fertil 1982; 1: 287–93.Google ScholarPubMed
29 Cooper, TG, Keck, C, Oberdieck, U, Nieschlag, E. Effects of multiple ejaculations after extended periods of sexual abstinence on total, motile and normal sperm numbers, as well as accessory gland secretions, from healthy normal and oligozoospermic men. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 1251–58.Google Scholar
30 Rogers, BJ, Perreault, SD, Bentwood, BJ, McCarville, C, Hale, RW, Soderdahl, DW. Variability in the human-hamster in vitro assay for fertility evaluation. Fertil Steril 1983; 39: 204–11.Google Scholar
31 Cohen, J, Aafjes, JH. Proteolytic enzymes stimulate human spermatozoal motility and in vitro hamster egg penetration. Life Sci 1982; 30: 899–904.Google Scholar
32 de Ziegler, D, Cedars, MI, Hamilton, F, Moreno, T, Meldrum, DR. Factors influencing maintenance of sperm motility during in vitro processing. Fertil Steril 1987; 48: 816–20.Google Scholar
33 Smith, KD, Rodriguez-Rigau, LJ, Steinberger, E. Relation between indices of semen analysis and pregnancy rate in infertile couples. Fertil Steril 1977; 28: 1314–19.Google Scholar
34 Bostofte, E, Serup, J, Rebbe, H. Relation between sperm count and semen volume, and pregnancies obtained during a twenty-year follow-up period. Int J Androl 1982; 5: 267–75.Google Scholar
35 Menkveld, R, Van Zyl, JA, Kotze, TJvW. A statistical comparison of three methods for the counting of human spermatozoa. Andrologia 1984; 16: 554–58.Google Scholar
36 Freund, M, Carol, B. Factors affecting haemocytometer counts of sperm concentration in human semen. J Reprod Fertil 8: 149–55.Google Scholar
37 Bostofte, E, Serup, J, Rebbe, H. Relation between number of immobile spermatozoa and pregnancies obtained during a twenty-year follow-up period. Immobile spermatozoa and fertility. Andrologia 1984; 16: 136–40.Google Scholar
38 Bostofte, E, Serup, J, Rebbe, H. Relation between spermatozoa motility and pregnancies obtained during a twenty-year follow-up period. Spermatozoa motility and fertility. Andrologia 1983; 15: 682–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39 Dunphy, BC, Li, T-C, Macleod, IC, Barratt, CLR, Lenton, EA, Cooke, ID. The interaction of parameters of male and female fertility in couples with previously unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 824–27.Google Scholar
40 Aitken, RJ, Sutton, M, Warner, P, Richardson, DW. Relationship between the movement characteristics of human spermatozoa and their ability to penetrate cervical mucus and zona-free hamster oocytes. J Reprod Fertil 1985; 73: 441–49.Google Scholar
41 Mortimer, D, Pandya, IJ, Sawers, RS. Relationship between human sperm motility characteristics and sperm penetration into human cervical mucus in vitro. J Reprod Fertil 1986; 78: 93–102.Google Scholar
42 Mortimer, D, Shu, MA, Tan, R. Standardization and quality control of sperm concentration and sperm motility counts in semen analysis. Hum Reprod 1986; 1: 299–303.Google Scholar
43 Jouannet, P, Ducot, B, Feneux, D, Spira, A. Male factors and the likelihood of pregnancy in infertile couples. I: study of sperm characteristics. Int J Androl 1988; 11: 379–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44 Freund, M. Standards for the rating of human sperm morphology: a cooperative study. Int J Fertil 1966; 11 (suppl): 1–97.Google Scholar
45 Fredricsson, B. Morphologic evaluation of spermatozoa in different laboratories. Andrologia 1979; 11: 57–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46 Mortimer, D, Leslie, EE, Kelly, RW, Templeton, AA. Morphological selection of human spermatozoa in vivo and in vitro. J Reprod Fertil 1982; 64: 391–99.Google Scholar
47 Menkveld, R, Stander, FSH, Kotze, TJvW, Kruger, TF, Van Zyl, JA. The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod 1990; 5: 586–92.Google Scholar
48 Kruger, TF, Menkveld, R, Stander, FSH, Lombard, CJ, Van der Merwe, JP, Van Zyl, JA, Smith, K. Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1986; 46: 1118–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49 Kruger, TF, Acosta, AA, Simmons, KF, Swanson, RJ, Matta, JF, Oehninger, S. Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 112–17.Google Scholar
50 Enginsu, ME, Dumoulin, JCM, Pieters, MHEC, Evers, JLH, Geraedts, JPM. Predictive value of morphologically normal sperm concentration in the medium for in-vitro fertilization. Int J Androl 1993; 16: 113–20.Google Scholar
51 David, G, Bisson, JP, Czyglik, F, Jouannet, P, Gernigon, C. Anomalies morphologiques du spermatozoide humain. (1) Propositions pour un système de classification. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 1975; 4 (suppl 1): 17–36.Google Scholar
52 Bostofte, E, Serup, J, Rebbe, H. Interrelations among the characteristics of human semen, and a new system for classification of male fertility. Fertil Steril 1984; 41: 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53 Aitken, RJ, Best, FSM, Richardson, DW, Djahanbakhch, O, Mortimer, D, Templeton, AA, Lees, MM. An analysis of sperm function in cases of unexplained infertility: conventional criteria, movement characteristics and fertilizing capacity. Fertil Steril 1982; 38: 212–21.Google Scholar
54 Rogers, BJ, Bentwood, BJ, van Campen, H, Helmbrecht, G, Soderdahl, D, Hale, RW. Sperm morphology assessment as an indicator of human fertilizing capacity. J Androl 1983; 4: 119–25.Google Scholar
55 Jeulin, C, Feneux, D, Serres, C, Jouannet, P, Guillet-Rosso, F, Belaisch-Allart, J, Frydman, R, Testart, J. Sperm factors related to failure of human in-vitro fertilization. J Reprod Fertil 1986; 76: 735–44.Google Scholar
56 Liu, DY, Baker, HWG. The proportion of human sperm with poor morphology but normal intact acrosomes detected with pisum sativum agglutinin correlates with fertilization in vitro. Fertil Steril 1988; 50: 288–93.Google Scholar
57 Knuth, UA, Yeung, C-H, Nieschlag, E. Computerized semen analysis: objective measurement of semen characteristics is biased by subjective parameter setting. Fertil Steril 1987; 48: 118–24.Google Scholar
58 Mortimer, D, Mortimer, ST. Influence of system parameter settings on human sperm motility analysis using CellSoft. Hum Reprod 1988; 3: 621–25.Google Scholar
59 Davis, RO, Katz, DF. Standardization and comparability of CASA instruments. J Androl 1992; 13: 81–86.Google Scholar
60 Kolibianakis, EM, Tarlatzis, BC, Bontis, J, Papadimas, J, Spanos, E, Mantalenakis, S. Evaluation of Hamilton-Thorn automated semen analysis system. Arch Androl 1992; 28: 213–22.Google Scholar
61 Levine, RJ, Mathew, RM, Brown, MH, Hurtt, ME, Bentley, KS, Mohr, KL, Working, PK. Computer-assisted semen analysis: results vary across technicians who prepare videotapes. Fertil Steril 1989; 50: 673–77.Google Scholar
62 Mortimer, D, Goel, N, Shu, MA. Evaluation of the CellSoft automated semen analysis system in a routine laboratory setting. Fertil Steril 1988; 50: 960–68.Google Scholar
63 Vantman, D, Koukoulis, G, Dennison, L, Zinaman, M, Sherins, RJ. Computer-assisted semen analysis: evaluation of method and assessment of the influence of sperm concentration on linear velocity determination. Fertil Steril 1988; 49; 510–15.Google Scholar
64 Knuth, UA, Nieschlag, E. Comparison of computerized semen analysis with the conventional procedure in 322 patients. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 881–85.Google Scholar
65 Neuwinger, J, Behre, HM, Nieschlag, E. Computerized semen analysis with sperm tail detection. Hum Reprod 1990; 5: 719–23.Google Scholar
66 Neuwinger, J, Knuth, UA, Nieschlag, E. Evaluation of the Hamilton-Thorn 2030 motility analyser for routine semen analysis in an infertility clinic. Int J Androl 1990; 13: 100–109.Google Scholar
67 Mathur, S. Automated semen analysis [Letter]. Fertil Steril 1989; 52: 343.Google ScholarPubMed
68 Chan, SYW, Wang, C, Song, BL, Lo, T, Leung, A, Tsoi, WL, Leung, J. Computer-assisted image analysis of sperm concentration in human semen before and after swim-up separation: comparison with assessment by haemocytometer. Int J Androl 1989; 12: 339–45.Google Scholar
69 Gnatuk, CL, Larrison, MC, Emgberg, JM, Ball, DG. Comparison of CellTrak to manual methods. J Androl 1991; 12 (suppl): P-49-Abstract 99 (Abstract).Google Scholar
70 Davis, RO, Gravance, CG. Standardization of specimen preparation, staining, and sampling methods improves automated sperm-head morphometry analysis. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 412–17.Google Scholar
71 Davis, RO, Thai, DM, Bain, DE, Andrew, JB, Siemers, RJ, Gravance, CG. Accuracy and precision of the CellForm-Human automated sperm morphometry instrument. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 763–69.Google Scholar
72 Ginsburg, KA, Armant, DR. The influence of chamber characteristics on the reliability of sperm concentration and movement measurements obtained by manual and videomicrographic analysis. Fertil Steril 1990; 53: 882.Google Scholar
73 Davis, RO, Katz, DF. Operational standards for CASA instruments. J Androl 1993; 14: 385–94.Google Scholar