Home  |   Archive  |   Online Submission  |   News & Events  |   Subscribe  |   APFA  |   Society  |   Contact Us  |   中文版
Search   
 
Journal

Ahead of print
Authors' Accepted
    Manuscripts
new!
Current Issue
Archive
Acknowledgments
Special Issues
Browse by Category

Manuscript Submission

Online Submission
Online Review
Instruction for Authors
Instruction for Reviewers
English Corner new!

About AJA

About AJA
Editorial Board
Contact Us
News

Resources & Services

Advertisement
Subscription
Email alert
Proceedings
Reprints

Download area

Copyright licence
EndNote style file
Manuscript word template
Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in English)

Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in Chinese)

Proof-reading for the
    authors

AJA Club (in English)
AJA Club (in Chinese)

 
Abstract

Volume 12, Issue 1 (January 2010) 12, 26–32; 10.1038/aja.2008.58

Semen analysis with regard to sperm number, sperm morphology and functional aspects

Rune Eliasson

Bjørnstigen 13, SE 165 71 HASSELBY, Sweden

Correspondence: Dr Rune Eliasson, E-mail: rune.eliasson@remcat.se

Received 9 November 2008; Revised 25 November 2009; Accepted 16 December 2008; Advance online publication 1 January 2010

Abstract

The new World Health Organization (WHO) Manual for Semen Analysis contains several improvements. One is that the 20 million spermatozoa per mL paradigm has been ousted in favour of proper calculations of lower reference limits for semen from men, whose partners had a time-to-pregnancy of 12 months or less. The recommendation to grade the progressive motility as described in the third and fourth editions of the WHO manual was not evidence-based, and WHO was therefore motivated to abandon it. However, the new recommendation is not evidence-based either, and it is difficult to understand the rational for the new assessment. It may have been a compromise to avoid returning to the rather robust system recommended in the first edition (1980). The unconditional recommendation of the 'Tygerberg strict criteria' is not evidence-based, and seems to be the result of an unfortunate bias in the composition of the Committee in favour of individuals known to support the 'strict criteria' method. This recommendation will have negative effects on the development of andrology as a scientific field. Given the importance of the WHO manual, it is unfortunate that the recommendations for such important variables, as motility and morphology, lack evidence-based support.

Keywords: evaluation report, semen analysis, spermatozoa, sperm morphology, sperm motility

PDF | PDF |

 
Browse:  4679
 
Asian Journal of Andrology CN 31-1795/R ISSN 1008-682X  Copyright © 2023  Shanghai Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences.  All rights reserved.