1 Institute of Reproductive Medicine of the University, Domagkstraße 11, D-48129 Münster, Germany and 2 UK NEQAS, Sub-fertility Laboratory, First Floor, Old Building, Saint Mary's Hospital, Whitworth Park, Manchester M13 0JH, UK
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: andrology/quality control/ring trials/semen analysis/spermatology
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Considering all the above, it should not be surprising to find differences between laboratories in their assessment of the same semen sample. Indeed, the limited experience with external quality control (EQC) for semen analysis has confirmed that large differences exist even between experienced laboratories in their concepts of normal forms and motility grades (Neuwinger et al., 1990; Matson, 1995
; Jørgensen et al., 1997
) and this awareness has provided impetus for improving the situation by calls for enrolling in ring trials or external quality control programmes (Cooper, 1996
; Michelmann, 1997
; Ochsendorf and Beschmann, 1998
). Although the aim of this exercise must be the eventual agreement between participating centres, whether this is achieved in practice has not been demonstrated. At a users' meeting in April 1997, it was clear that in many cases the results of EQC were often retained by the consultant in charge of the laboratory and not discussed with the technicians performing the tests. The results of such comparisons between laboratories indicate to the clinician where the results of his laboratory stand in relation to others, but where differences in assessment exist, changes in assessment of semen characteristics can only occur when technicians are aware of these comparisons.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In May 1994 the first semen samples, fixed in formalin, were sent out. On this occasion four laboratories participated. In July 1998 there were 148 participants. The target value used for the first five distributions was an all laboratory trimmed mean (ALTM) but this was deemed inappropriate especially for morphology where the spread of results returned was very wide. Sixteen reference laboratories were chosen on the strength of their consistently good performance over the previous distribution. On each occasion six of these laboratories are randomly chosen and the mean of these results is given as the target value. A noticeable improvement in the results returned has been apparent since this change was incorporated. The method of setting target values will be kept under review and a return to consensus may occur in future if the SAG believes this to be appropriate. Results are returned to participants using histograms and graphs depicting cumulative scores of mean running variance index (MRVIS) and mean running bias index (MRBIS). These graphs are shaded and participants should aim to remain consistently within the unshaded area.
An assessment of sperm motility is an essential part of any semen analysis and the need for a method to assess the quality of results was needed. Given the large numbers involved and the distance from Manchester of many, it would obviously be impossible to send viable spermatozoa to all participating units. The motility and indeed viability of samples on arrival would be inconsistent and would therefore invalidate the scheme. Videotaping (VHS) of samples under phase contrast microscopy was considered to be the most appropriate because some units might not have access to more sophisticated information technology. Although looking at spermatozoa on a television screen is not the same as down a microscope the scheme is enjoying similar success to the concentration and morphology scheme and is attracting new participants. Currently there are 98 units enrolled. Consensus values are used as target values for each of the four categories of motility. Results are returned using histograms, MRVIS and MRBIS graphs as in the concentration and morphology scheme.
Methodology
The Institute of Reproductive Medicine has been enrolled in the UK NEQAS Andrology Quality Control Scheme for sperm concentration and morphology since December 1994 and in their scheme for sperm motility since December 1995. For sperm concentration and morphology four aliquots of semen containing 100 µl formalin (10%, v/v) per ml were provided four times a year so that a total of up to 63 samples is analysed in this paper. They were handled in the same way as all the other specimens received in the clinic by one technician (but not the same one each time) and assessed as described in the WHO Manual (1992). They were known to be quality control samples since they were provided in different (1.5 ml) tubes than regular samples and were of lower volume. For sperm motility, videotapes of phase contrast images of spermatozoa were provided four times a year (a total of 48 samples) and assessed visually in the same way as microscopic images of normal semen preparations.
Feedback from the UK NEQAS Centre was regularly provided in the form of graphical data and summaries. The designated values of sperm concentration, normal morphology and motility were tabulated and correlated with the values provided by the technicians. Histograms depicting the number of laboratories obtaining certain sperm concentrations, percentage normal forms and percentage of the WHO (1992) motility grades a (`excellent'), b (`sluggish'), c (`non progressive') and d (`immotile') were provided with an arrow indicating in which bin the value from our laboratory was found. The results from the laboratory, together with the designated value, were given as well as bias (difference from designated values), percentage bias, variance index score (indicating the total error/difference from target value calculated from the bias index score), mean running variance index score and mean running bias index score.
The results from each distribution were discussed with the technicians; possible reasons for agreement and disparities were considered and a change in discrimination between categories of normal forms and motility was implemented. Results were also presented to the staff of the Institute at regular meetings.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Agreement on the results of assessment of sperm morphology was more of a problem with severe underestimation of normal forms. Nevertheless, with time, and after some delay and after a period of overestimation, a move towards closer agreement with the target values was observed. However, as the major improvement occurred at the same time as the designated values were provided by consensus, rather than from trimmed means of values provided by all participants in the scheme, it is difficult to be certain whether feedback of results to the technicians helped alter the subjective evaluation of sperm morphology. It also emphasizes the responsibility of the EQC centre in maintaining consistent designated values.
The poor agreement on certain aspects of sperm motility has several causes. Assessment of videotapes is clearly a different experience than looking through a microscope eyepiece; nevertheless, for less subjective categories [grade d (immotile spermatozoa), grade c (flagellating but non-progressive spermatozoa) and grades a + b (progressive spermatozoa)] agreement was reasonable over the period of study. The major discrepancy between our technicians' results and the designated values was in categorizing grades a and b. The reason for this discrepancy is known to be the high threshold of sperm velocities (~70 µm/s) above which our technicians grade a spermatozoon as being grade a (Yeung et al., 1997).
Until recently no guidelines were recommended for the velocities of `fast progressive' (grade a) spermatozoa, although the forthcoming 4th edition of the WHO Manual will suggest the value of 25 µm/s or more recommended by Mortimer (1994) and NEQAS and utilized by MacLeod et al. (1994) and others. Sperm velocities below this value are associated with reduced fertility resulting from insemination of frozen semen (Holt et al., 1989) and fertilization in vitro (Holt et al., 1985
). With a view to adopting this recommendation, and to conform with the other laboratories participating in the NEQAS scheme, the concept of making a grade a spermatozoon an exceptionally fast one to considering a grade b spermatozoon an exceptionally slow one helped. Here, the drastic improvement in agreement of our laboratory with the designated values after the change in assessment was not due to changes in the method of generating the designated value.
This preliminary exercise in evaluating the results of participation in an external quality control programme has indicated its usefulness in reducing differences between assessments made by different laboratories. All laboratories currently taking part in such ring trials are encouraged to evaluate their data in a similar way to see if improvements are a consistent feature of such schemes. With such a demonstration of moves to agreement the standing of semen analysis should be raised from that of a much neglected test (Chong et al., 1983) to being on a par with hormone assays. Clinical andrology is still necessary, despite the widespread introduction of ICSI in male infertility treatment (van der Ven and Haidl, 1997
). Currently this discipline is being reassessed and new training procedures need to be introduced (Jequier and Cummins, 1997
; Patrizio and Kopf, 1997
; Tournaye, 1997
) which should include basic performance of routine semen work-up and the concepts of internal and external quality control. Together with guidelines for the application of computer-assisted semen analysis to analysis of spermatozoa (ESHRE, 1998), this convergence of views should lead to a uniformity of semen assessment that are necessary for multicentre studies and provide useful information on the predictive values of these semen parameters for fertilization in vitro or in vivo or meaningful prospective studies on secular trends in sperm counts (Nieschlag and Lerchl, 1966).
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
Notes |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Cooper, T.G. (1996) News from the European Academy of Andrology (EAA). Implementation of quality control in the andrology laboratory. Int. J. Androl., 19, 6768.[ISI]
Cooper, T.G., Neuwinger, J., Bahrs, S. and Nieschlag, E. (1992) Internal quality control of semen analysis. Fertil. Steril., 58, 172178.[ISI][Medline]
ESHRE Andrology Special Interest Group (1998) Guidelines in the application of CASA techniques in the analysis of spermatozoa. Hum. Reprod., 13, 142145.
Holt, W.V., Moore, H.D.M. and Hillier, S.G. (1985) Computer-assisted measurement of sperm swimming speed in human semen: correlation of results with in vitro fertilization assays. Fertil. Steril., 44, 112119.[ISI][Medline]
Holt, W.V., Shenfield, F., Leonard, T. et al. (1989) The value of sperm swimming speed measurement in assessing the fertility of human frozen semen. Hum. Reprod., 4, 293297.
Jequier, A.M. and Cummins, J.M. (1997) Attitude to clinical andrology: a time for change. Hum. Reprod., 12, 875883.
Jørgensen, N., Auger, J., Giwercman, A., et al. (1997) Semen analysis performed by different laboratory teams: an intervariation study. Int. J. Androl., 20, 201208.[ISI][Medline]
MacLeod, I.C., Irvine, D.A., Masterton, A. et al. (1994) Assessment of the conventional criteria of semen quality by computer-assisted image analysis evaluation of the HamiltonThorn motility analyser in the context of a service andrology laboratory. Hum. Reprod., 9, 310319.[Abstract]
Matson, P.L. (1995) External quality control assessment for semen analysis and sperm antibody detection: results of a pilot scheme. Hum. Reprod., 10, 620625.[Abstract]
Michelmann, H.W. (1997) Quality management in the andrology laboratory. Int. J. Androl., 20, 5054.[ISI][Medline]
Mortimer, D. (1994) Laboratory standards in routine clinical andrology. Reprod. Med. Rev., 3, 97111.
Neuwinger, J., Behre, H.M. and Nieschlag, E. (1990) External quality control in the andrology laboratory: an experimental multicenter trial. Fertil. Steril., 54, 308314.[ISI][Medline]
Nieschlag, E. and Lerchl, A. (1996) Declining sperm counts in European men fact or fiction? Andrologia, 28, 305306.[ISI][Medline]
Ochsendorf, F.R. and Beschmann, H.A. (1998) Qualitätssicherung im andrologischen Labor. Reproduktionsmedizin, 14, 97105.
Patrizio, P. and Kopf, G.S. (1997) Molecular biology in the modern work-up of the infertile male: the time to recognize the need for andrologists. Hum. Reprod., 12, 879883.
Tournaye, H. (1997) Declining clinical andrology: fact or fiction? Hum. Reprod., 12, 876879.[ISI][Medline]
van der Ven,H. and Haidl, G. (1997) Clinical andrology is important for treatment of male infertility with ICSI. Hum. Reprod., 12, 879.
WHO (1992) Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and SpermCervical Mucus Interaction, 3rd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Yeung, C.H., Cooper, T.G. and Nieschlag, E. (1997) A technique for standardization and quality control of subjective sperm motility assessments in semen analysis. Fertil. Steril., 67, 11561158.[ISI][Medline]
Submitted on September 3, 1998; accepted on December 4, 1998.