Research Methods · Scholarly Communication
Björndahl L, Esteves SC, Ferlin A, Jørgensen N, O'Flaherty C
Cite this paper
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
Open access
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
Open Access
The purpose of this article is to provide an explanation of the background behind a checklist that declares the laboratory methods used in a scientific study. It focuses primarily on implementing laboratory procedures to yield reliable results in basic semen examinations. While the World Health Organization (WHO) and international standards provide recommendations for basic semen examination, manuscripts submitted to Andrology frequently lack transparency regarding the specific techniques used. In addition, the terminology used for semen examination results often fails to provide a clear definition of the groups under study. Furthermore, the WHO's reference limits are often misinterpreted as strict boundaries between fertility and infertility. It is important to note that valid clinical andrological diagnoses and treatments cannot rely solely on semen examination results; they require proper laboratory procedures as a foundation for diagnosing and treating male patients. Therefore, scientific journals should promote the adoption of robust laboratory practices and an accurate definition of patient groups. A checklist can facilitate the design of high-quality studies and the creation of informative publications. Further, it can help journals assess submitted manuscripts and improve the overall quality of their publications.
Grande G et al., 2026 · The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · Free to read
Male factor infertility (MFI) is frequently labelled idiopathic when evaluation relies primarily on semen analysis, potentially overlooking endocrine and pathophysiological mechanisms relevant for targeted management. To phenotypically define MFI and develop a pathophysiology-based classification aimed at reducing idiopathic infertility following comprehensive evaluation. Prospective monocentric cohort study conducted at a tertiary referral academic centre. Eight hundred male partners of infertile couples evaluated between October 2024 and January 2026 after exclusion of isolated female factor infertility. Prevalence of MFI categories, hormonal patterns across phenotypes, and proportion of idiopathic infertility after comprehensive work-up. All patients underwent standardized clinical evaluation, hormonal assessment (total testosterone, FSH, LH), testicular ultrasound, and complete semen analysis. Microbiological testing, transrectal ultrasound, and genetic analyses were performed according to guidelines. Primary spermatogenic failure was the most prevalent category (56.0%), followed by infection/inflammation (22.4%) and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (8.5%). Idiopathic infertility was identified in only 5.3% of cases. Distinct endocrine profiles were observed, with high-FSH spermatogenic failure representing the dominant phenotype. Comprehensive phenotyping markedly reduces the proportion of patients classified as having idiopathic infertility and identifies clinically relevant subgroups. This prospective study provides validation of a pathophysiology-based classification and supports a shift toward endocrine-integrated diagnostic strategies in male infertility, with potential implications for targeted management.
Rocca MS et al., 2026 · Journal of translational medicine · Free to read
Standard semen analysis has little prognostic value in distinguishing fertile from infertile men. Furthermore, in men with semen parameters within the reference ranges, it cannot distinguish fertile men from infertile men, i.e. partners of couples with idiopathic infertility. Oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, sperm telomere shortening, and DNA fragmentation have been proposed as contributors to impaired male fertility. However, these biomarkers have not been evaluated as a whole in subjects with normal semen parameters, partners of fertile and infertile couples. To characterise a multidimensional panel of sperm biomarkers-including sperm telomere length (STL), mitochondrial DNA copy number (mtDNAcn), reactive oxygen species (ROS), lipid peroxidation (LP), sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD), and respiratory control ratio (RCR)-and to identify whether these parameters might discriminate, in men with normal semen parameters, infertile men from fertile controls. A total of 150 men with semen parameters within the normal ranges were enrolled: 47 male partners of couples with idiopathic infertility and 103 fertile controls. STL and mtDNAcn were quantified by qPCR; ROS were assessed using OxiSperm®II with semiquantitative imaging; LP was measured spectrophotometrically in seminal plasma; SCD was used to determine DNA fragmentation; and mitochondrial function was evaluated by oxygen consumption and RCR. Correlations between biomarkers and semen parameters were analysed using Pearson or Spearman coefficients, and intergroup comparisons were adjusted for age. Semen parameters did not differ significantly between male partners of fertile and infertile couples. compared to men of fertile couples, men of infertile couples exhibited significantly shorter STL (0.57 ± 0.59 vs 1.21 ± 1.13, p_adj = 0.001) and higher oxidative stress, with both ROS (8300.9 ± 4214.8 vs 6555.3 ± 3394.3, p_adj = 0.027) and LP (88.33 ± 55.50 vs 40.29 ± 46.98, p_adj < 0.001) markedly elevated. mtDNAcn, SCD, and RCR showed no difference between the groups. Across the entire cohort, STL correlated negatively with ROS and LP and positively with RCR. ROS correlated negatively with total sperm count, motility and RCR, and positively with LP. LP displayed the strongest pattern of associations, correlating negatively with concentration, total count, motility, STL and RCR, and positively with age and volume. Among men with normal semen analysis, partners of couples with idiopathic infertility exhibit a distinct sperm molecular profile characterised by telomere shortening and oxidative imbalance. STL, ROS and LP emerged as age-independent biomarkers associated with infertility status and showed promising discriminatory ability in this cohort, supporting their integration as second-level tests to complement routine semen analysis in cases of normozoospermia.
Ponce MR et al., 2026 · Andrology · Free full text on PubMed Central
Transgender individuals assigned male at birth (AMAB) may choose to preserve their fertility prior to starting gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT). However, limited data exist regarding the baseline reproductive and hormonal characteristics of this population before and after GAHT. To characterize semen quality and hormonal profiles in transgender AMAB individuals prior to GAHT and compare findings with cisgender men and with transgender individuals who discontinued GAHT for at least 3 months. This retrospective study included transgender AMAB individuals from two tertiary andrology centers who underwent sperm cryopreservation before GAHT initiation (treatment-naïve group). Clinical evaluation included anthropometric measures, testicular volume assessment, varicocele detection, and sex hormone measures. Semen parameters were analyzed according to WHO criteria and compared with those of cisgender men and previously treated transgender individuals. Thirty-two treatment-naïve transgender AMAB individuals were included. Hormonal parameters were generally within reference ranges. Only 46.9% of treatment-naïve individuals met WHO criteria for normozoospermia, compared with 75.5% of cisgender controls. Compared with nine previously treated individuals, estradiol levels were higher and seminal volume lower. A higher frequency of seminal abnormalities was observed, although not statistically significant. A substantial proportion of treatment-naïve transgender AMAB individuals exhibited impaired semen parameters prior to GAHT initiation. Prior GAHT exposure showed a trend toward poorer semen quality. These findings support early fertility counseling and preservation in transgender individuals prior to GAHT initiation.
Delbarba A et al., 2026 · Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · Free full text on PubMed Central
Male hypogonadism is associated with significant alterations in body composition, including reduced lean body mass (LBM), increased fat body mass (FBM), particularly visceral adiposity, and impaired muscle function, contributing to frailty and cardiometabolic risk. These changes reflect the disruption of a complex endocrine crosstalk among bone, muscle, and adipose tissue, mediated by cytokines such as osteokines, myokines, and adipokines. This dysregulation promotes the development of osteosarcopenic obesity, a condition characterized by the coexistence of low bone mass, sarcopenia, and excess adiposity. Testosterone (T) plays a central role in maintaining body composition by stimulating muscle protein synthesis, inhibiting adipogenesis, and preserving bone health. Its deficiency, irrespective of etiology, leads to rapid impairment of anabolic pathways, resulting in decreased lean mass and increased fat accumulation. Evidence from clinical and experimental models demonstrates that these alterations are partially reversible with T replacement therapy (TRT), although variability exists depending on the underlying cause of hypogonadism. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) represents the gold standard for assessing bone mineral density (BMD) and a key tool for evaluating body composition through a three-compartment model. It allows precise quantification of fat and lean mass, as well as their regional distribution, with minimal radiation exposure. In this review, we provide a comprehensive and clinically oriented overview of body composition alterations in male hypogonadism, focusing on underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and the practical application of DXA across different clinical scenarios. We discuss evidence from conditions such as Klinefelter syndrome, Kallmann syndrome, androgen deprivation therapy, HIV infection, and transgender care, aiming to offer a pragmatic framework for integrating body composition assessment into routine practice and improving patient management.
Raperport C et al., 2024 · BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · Free to read
There is no consensus on tests required to either diagnose unexplained infertility or use for research inclusion criteria. This leads to heterogeneity and bias affecting meta-analysis and best practice advice. This systematic review analyses the variability of inclusion criteria applied to couples with unexplained infertility. We propose standardised criteria for use both in future research studies and clinical diagnosis. CINAHL and MEDLINE online databases were searched up to November 2022 for all published studies recruiting couples with unexplained infertility, available in full text in the English language. Data were collected in an Excel spreadsheet. Results were analysed per category and methodology or reference range. Of 375 relevant studies, only 258 defined their inclusion criteria. The most commonly applied inclusion criteria were semen analysis, tubal patency and assessment of ovulation in 220 (85%), 232 (90%), 205 (79.5%) respectively. Only 87/220 (39.5%) studies reporting semen analysis used the World Health Organization (WHO) limits. Tubal patency was accepted if bilateral in 145/232 (62.5%) and if unilateral in 24/232 (10.3%). Ovulation was assessed using mid-luteal serum progesterone in 115/205 (56.1%) and by a history of regular cycles in 87/205 (42.4%). Other criteria, including uterine cavity assessment and hormone profile, were applied in less than 50% of included studies. This review highlights the heterogeneity among studied populations with unexplained infertility. Development and application of internationally accepted criteria will improve the quality of research and future clinical care.
Björndahl L et al., 2022 · Human Reproduction
Biomedical science is rapidly developing in terms of more transparency, openness and reproducibility of scientific publications. This is even more important for all studies that are based on results from basic semen examination. Recently two concordant documents have been published: the 6th edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen, and the International Standard ISO 23162:2021. With these tools, we propose that authors should be instructed to follow these laboratory methods in order to publish studies in peer-reviewed journals, preferable by using a checklist as suggested in an Appendix to this article.
Ferlin A et al., 2020 · Journal of clinical medicine · Free full text on PubMed Central
About one-fifth of couples has fertility problems in Western countries. Male factors are present in about half of them, either alone or in combination with female causes. Therefore, both partners should be evaluated simultaneously. The fertility status and/or specific conditions of each partner influence the clinical and treatment approach. This article summarizes in a practical way when, how, and why the male partner of an infertile couple should be investigated. The available evidence and international guidelines were used, interpreting, discussing, and expanding them from personal decades-long experience in this field. The aim is to delineate the most appropriate clinical approach for the male partner of infertile couples, considering traditional and emerging technologies and laboratory analyses in the context of their clinical significance. Components of the initial evaluation in men without known risk factors for infertility should include at minimum medical history, physical examination, and semen analysis. Semen microbiological examination, endocrine assessment, scrotal ultrasound, and transrectal ultrasound are suggested in most men and are mandatory when specific risk factors for male infertility are known to be present or when the initial screening demonstrated abnormalities. Full examination, including genetic tests, testicular histology, or additional tests on sperm, is clinically oriented and/or suggested after the results of initial investigations.
Grande G et al., 2024 · Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
Sir, We read with interest the guideline about unexplained infertility developed by the Guideline Group (GDG) on Unexplained Infertility of ESHRE (Romualdi et al., 2023). We appreciated the efforts to have clear, evidence-based recommendations on this important topic but would like to point out fundamental problems and misunderstandings on the approach to the male factor. Although we can agree on the definition of unexplained infertility made by the GDG as ‘infertility in couples with apparently normal ovarian function, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix and pelvis, age ≤40 years and with adequate coital frequency; and apparently normal testicular function, genito-urinary anatomy, and a normal ejaculate’, substantial differences in the diagnostic approach for the female and male partner are then proposed to assess these features. In fact, a comprehensive evaluation of the female partner is recommended considering ovulation, ovarian reserve, tubal factor, uterine factor, and even vaginal microbiota, whereas the approach to the male partner is limited only to semen analysis. The entire following line of reasoning assumes that a normal semen analysis is sufficient to rule out male factor infertility and no further examination is needed. There are several problems with this approach. First of all, it is quite clear that a normal testicular function and genito-urinary anatomy cannot be determined by semen analysis only, but instead require a combination of, at least, history, physical examination, endocrine assessment, and ultrasound examination of the testes and seminal tract. For semen analysis, the GDG correctly refers to the World Health Organization (WHO) manual for semen analysis (6th edition) (World Health Organization, 2021) but misinterpreted it because the GDG does not recommend any other diagnostic procedure when ‘semen analysis according to WHO criteria is normal’. Not only did the GDG neglect to consider a broad approach to understand whether the testicular function and genito-urinary anatomy are normal, but also it made substantial misunderstandings on the role and significance of semen analysis and its relation with fertility. A main point is that the WHO manual does not define normal semen analysis (World Health Organization, 2021), simply because the so-called ‘reference values’, and in particular the fifth percentile reference, do not represent cut-off limits for fertility and infertility. These values represent the distribution of results from around 3500 presumed fertile men and they are ‘not sufficient to establish clinically useful decision limits’ (World Health Organization, 2021). WHO is very clear when stating that ‘reference values cannot be used to distinct limits between fertile and subfertile men’, ‘the lower fifth percentile of data from men in the reference population does not represent a limit between fertile and infertile men’, and ‘for an individual patient, a semen analysis is never prognostic of infertility’. Since, it is well known that natural fertility is possible with semen parameters below the fifth percentile and infertility with semen parameters above the fifth percentile, a ‘normal ejaculate’ cannot be defined. Therefore, there is a ‘problem in applying a dichotomous categorization to fertility that must be considered a continuum. It is also well known that there is a substantial overlap of semen examination results between fertile and infertile men’ (World Health Organization, 2021). Hence, the reference limits cannot be used as a specific limit between infertile and fertile men (Björndahl et al., 2023). Results of semen examination below the WHO reference values do not automatically mean that the problem of the couple resides in the male, and results above the limits do not always mean that the male partner of an infertile couple is undoubtedly fertile (Björndahl et al., 2023). Semen analysis is fundamental in the initial investigation of the male partner of an infertile couple, but its [truncated]
