Distribution of semen examination results 2020 - A follow up of data collated for the WHO semen analysis manual 2010.
WHO
fertile man
reference values
semen analysis
Journal
Andrology
ISSN: 2047-2927
Titre abrégé: Andrology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101585129
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
revised:
28
01
2021
received:
25
11
2020
accepted:
29
01
2021
pubmed:
3
2
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
2
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
It is now 11 years since publication of the WHO 2010 guidelines for semen assessment values, and it is critical to determine whether they are still valid and/or whether they should be modified. To utilise data published since 2010 and combine these with data used in the 2010 assessment to provide an updated and more comprehensive representation of the fertile man. This may be utilised to present an updated distribution of values for use by WHO in 2021. Two specific analyses were performed namely, (1) Analysis 1: Examination of published data following publication of WHO 2010 [termed 2010-2020 data]. (2) Analysis 2: Examination of the data used to help formulate the 2010 distribution of values combined with the data from Analysis (1) [termed WHO 2020]. In total, data from more than 3500 subjects, from twelve countries and five continents were analysed. The 5 This study presents substantial additional information to establish more comprehensive and globally applicable lower reference values for semen parameters for fertile men although they do not represent distinct limits between fertile and subfertile men. There are still data missing from many countries and, some geographical regions are not represented. Moreover, the number of subjects although significant is still relatively low (<4000). These distributions of values now include semen analysis providing a more global representation of the fertile man. Increasing the number of subjects provides robust information that is also more geographically representative.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
It is now 11 years since publication of the WHO 2010 guidelines for semen assessment values, and it is critical to determine whether they are still valid and/or whether they should be modified.
OBJECTIVES
To utilise data published since 2010 and combine these with data used in the 2010 assessment to provide an updated and more comprehensive representation of the fertile man. This may be utilised to present an updated distribution of values for use by WHO in 2021.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two specific analyses were performed namely, (1) Analysis 1: Examination of published data following publication of WHO 2010 [termed 2010-2020 data]. (2) Analysis 2: Examination of the data used to help formulate the 2010 distribution of values combined with the data from Analysis (1) [termed WHO 2020].
RESULTS
In total, data from more than 3500 subjects, from twelve countries and five continents were analysed. The 5
DISCUSSION
This study presents substantial additional information to establish more comprehensive and globally applicable lower reference values for semen parameters for fertile men although they do not represent distinct limits between fertile and subfertile men. There are still data missing from many countries and, some geographical regions are not represented. Moreover, the number of subjects although significant is still relatively low (<4000).
CONCLUSION
These distributions of values now include semen analysis providing a more global representation of the fertile man. Increasing the number of subjects provides robust information that is also more geographically representative.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
817-822Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2021 American Society of Andrology and European Academy of Andrology.
Références
WHO. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen, 5th edn. 2010. https://www.WHO.int/reproductivehealth/publications/infertility/9789241547789/en/
Cooper TG , Noonan E , von Eckardstein S , et al. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(3):231-245.
Liberati A , Altman DG , Tetzlaff J , et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1-e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.
Lotti F , Frizza F , Balercia G , et al. The European Academy of Andrology (EAA) ultrasound study on healthy, fertile men: clinical, seminal and biochemical characteristics. Andrology. 2020;8(5):1005-1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.12808
Aboutorabi R , Zamani S , Zarrin Y , Mostafavi FS . A survey on main semen parameters in natural pregnancy and intrauterine insemination: are there any significant differences? Am J Mens Health. 2018;12(3):617-623. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988316647966
Zedan H , Ismail S , Gomaa A , Saleh R , Henkel R , Agarwal A . Evaluation of reference values of standard semen parameters in fertile Egyptian men. Andrologia. 2018;50(4):e12942. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.12942
Tang Y-G , Qin W-B , Tang L-X , et al. The reference values for semen parameters of 1213 fertile men in Guangdong Province in China. Asian J Androl. 2015;17(2):298-303. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.143251
Evgeni E , Lymberopoulos G , Gazouli M , Asimakopoulos B . Conventional semen parameters and DNA fragmentation in relation to fertility status in a Greek population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;188:17-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.02.026
Björndahl L , Barratt CLR , Mortimer D , Jouannet P . “How to count sperm properly”: Checklist for acceptability of studies based on human semen analysis. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):227-232. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev305
Buck Louis GM , Sundaram R , Schisterman EF , et al. Semen quality and time to pregnancy: the Longitudinal Investigation of Fertility and the Environment Study. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(2):453-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.10.022
Tang L-X , Wang Q-L , Tang Y-G , Jiang F , Wang L-L , Huang J-T . [Semen quality of normal fertile men]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2013;19(9):789-793.
Punab M , Poolamets O , Paju P , et al. Causes of male infertility: A 9-year prospective monocentre study on 1737 patients with reduced total sperm counts. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(1):18-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew284
Ford WCL . Comments on the release of the 5th edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. Asian J Androl. 2010;12(1):59-63. https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2008.57
Boyd JC . Defining laboratory reference values and decision limits: populations, intervals, and interpretations. Asian J Androl. 2010;12(1):83-90. https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2009.9
Björndahl L . What is normal semen quality? On the use and abuse of reference limits for the interpretation of semen analysis results. Hum Fertil. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2011;14(3):179-186. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2011.580823
Macleod J , Gold RZ . The male factor in fertility and infertility. II. Spermatozoön counts in 1000 men of known fertility and in 1000 cases of infertile marriage. J Urol. 2017;197(2S):S78-S91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.077
Siest G , Henny J , Gräsbeck R , et al. The theory of reference values: An unfinished symphony. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013;51(1): https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2012-0682
Naghma-E-Rehan SAJ , Fertig JW . The semen of fertile men: statistical analysis of 1300 men. Fertil Steril. 1975;26(6):492-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)41169-6
Stewart TM , Liu DY , Garrett C , Jørgensen N , Brown EH , Baker HWG . Associations between andrological measures, hormones and semen quality in fertile Australian men: Inverse relationship between obesity and sperm output. Hum Reprod. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(7):1561-1568. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep075
Haugen TB , Egeland T , Magnus Ø . Semen parameters in Norwegian fertile men. J Androl. J Androl. 2006;27(1):66-71. https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.05010
Swan SH , Brazil C , Drobnis EZ , et al. Geographic differences in semen quality of fertile U.S. males. Environ . Health Perspectives. 2003;111(4):414-420. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.5927
Auger J , Eustache F , Andersen AG , et al. Sperm morphological defects related to environment, lifestyle and medical history of 1001 male partners of pregnant women from four European cities. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(12):2710-2717. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.12.2710
Jørgensen N , Andersen A-G , Eustache F , et al. Regional differences in semen quality in Europe. Hum Reprod. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(5):1012-1019. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.5.1012
Slama R , Eustache F , Ducot B , et al. Time to pregnancy and semen parameters: A cross-sectional study among fertile couples from four European cities. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(2):503-515. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.2.503
Bonde JPE , Ernst E , Jensen TK , et al. Relation between semen quality and fertility: A population-based study of 430 first-pregnancy planners. Lancet. 1998;352(9135):1172-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)10514-1
Jensen TK , Slama R , Ducot B , et al. Regional differences in waiting time to pregnancy among fertile couples from four European cities. Human Reprod. 2001;16(12):2697-2704. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.12.2697