Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1997 Dec;20(6):367-72.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2605.1998.00079.x.

Sperm morphology assessment: diagnostic potential and comparative analysis of strict or WHO criteria in a fertile and a subfertile population

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Sperm morphology assessment: diagnostic potential and comparative analysis of strict or WHO criteria in a fertile and a subfertile population

W Ombelet et al. Int J Androl. 1997 Dec.

Abstract

This prospective study compared the diagnostic and predictive potential of sperm morphology assessments in a fertile vs. a subfertile population, evaluated in three different laboratories. The fertile population included 144 men who had recently fertilized their partners. As subfertile controls, 136 men with a history of subfertility for more than 12 months were used. All semen samples (280) were evaluated in three different centres in a blind fashion, without any patient information. The evaluation of sperm morphology was performed according to the criteria normally used in the different laboratories: WHO (1992) criteria for laboratory A, and Tygerberg strict criteria for laboratories B and C. Using ROC analysis, the predictive power of sperm morphology turned out to be different in the three laboratories (area under ROC curve: 69% for lab A, 72% for lab B and 78% for lab C). Using percentile 10 of the fertile population as the cut-off value for normality, we obtained the following results: 2, 1 and 5% for laboratories A, B and C, respectively. Using ROC analysis cut-off values with optimal specificity and sensitivity were 6, 1 and 10%, respectively. Although our data highlight a reasonable predictive power of sperm morphology in centres using different or the same criteria, cut-off values for normality were different, even when the same criteria were applied. These results stress the importance of standardization in sperm morphology evaluation and the need for examining a reference population in estimating the real threshold value in different laboratories.

PubMed Disclaimer