Semen parameters in a fertile versus subfertile population: A need for change in the interpretation of semen testing

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorOmbelet W.
dc.contributor.authorBosnians E.
dc.contributor.authorJanssen M.
dc.contributor.authorCox A.
dc.contributor.authorVlasselaer J.
dc.contributor.authorGyselaers W.
dc.contributor.authorVandeput H.
dc.contributor.authorGielen J.
dc.contributor.authorPollet H.
dc.contributor.authorMacs M.
dc.contributor.authorSteeno O.
dc.contributor.authorKruger T.
dc.date.accessioned2011-05-15T16:16:34Z
dc.date.available2011-05-15T16:16:34Z
dc.date.issued1997
dc.description.abstractThis prospectively designed study was conducted to compare a fertile and a subfertile population so as to define normal values for different semen parameters. Semen analyses were performed according to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, except for sperm morphology (strict criteria). In the fertile population (n = 144), all patients had recently achieved pregnancy, within 12 months of unprotected coitus. As subfertile controls we examined semen samples from 143 consecutive men attending our infertility clinic during the same study period. Couples with tubal factor infertility and/or ovulatory disorders were excluded from our study. Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis we determined the diagnostic potential and cut-off values for single and combined sperm parameters. Sperm morphology scored best, with a value of 78% (area under the ROC curve). Summary statistics showed a shift towards abnormality for most semen parameters in the subfertile population. Using the 10th percentile of the fertile population as the cut-off value, the following results were obtained: 14.3 x 106/ml for sperm concentration, 28% for progressive motility and 5% for sperm morphology. Using ROC analysis, cutoff values were 34 x 106/ml, 45% and 10% respectively. Cut-off values for normality were different from those described in the WHO guidelines. Routine bacterial and non-bacterial cultures turned out to be of little prognostic value.
dc.description.versionArticle
dc.identifier.citationHuman Reproduction
dc.identifier.citation12
dc.identifier.citation5
dc.identifier.issn02681161
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/13843
dc.subjectarticle
dc.subjectcell structure
dc.subjectclinical trial
dc.subjectcontrolled clinical trial
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectmajor clinical study
dc.subjectmale
dc.subjectmale infertility
dc.subjectmicrobiology
dc.subjectnormal human
dc.subjectprospective study
dc.subjectsemen analysis
dc.subjectsperm
dc.subjectspermatozoon count
dc.subjectspermatozoon density
dc.subjectspermatozoon motility
dc.subjectsubfertility
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectCohort Studies
dc.subjectDouble-Blind Method
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectFertility
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectInfertility, Male
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectProspective Studies
dc.subjectReference Values
dc.subjectROC Curve
dc.subjectSemen
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificity
dc.subjectSperm Count
dc.subjectSperm Motility
dc.subjectSpermatozoa
dc.subjectBacteria (microorganisms)
dc.titleSemen parameters in a fertile versus subfertile population: A need for change in the interpretation of semen testing
dc.typeArticle
Files
Collections
Stellenbosch University - Scopus Tygerberg Hospital Publications