Björndahl, L., Esteves, S. C., Ferlin, A., Jørgensen, N., & O'Flaherty, C. (2023). Improving standard practices in studies using results from basic human semen examination. Andrology. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.13504
Björndahl L, Esteves SC, Ferlin A, Jørgensen N, O'Flaherty C. Improving standard practices in studies using results from basic human semen examination. Andrology. 2023. doi:10.1111/andr.13504
Björndahl, Lars, et al. "Improving standard practices in studies using results from basic human semen examination." Andrology, 2023.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
Open access
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
Open Access
Author affiliations
2 institutions
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)04wffgt70
WHO semen reference limits do not divide fertile from infertile men
WHO semen reference limits cannot serve as a boundary between fertile and infertile men, say five authors in a 2023 short article. The article backs a journal checklist for studies that report semen tests. It also sets out lab methods and wording for those studies.
Study at a glance, short communication: WHO semen reference limits do not divide fertile from infertile men. Source: Björndahl L et al., 2023, PMID 37740519.
Key Findings
WHO reference limits mark the lowest 5% of results in a mixed group of men with different fertility. The limits cannot serve as a specific line between infertile and fertile men.
Results below WHO reference values do not automatically place the problem in the male partner, and results above them do not necessarily show that he is fertile.
Counting fewer than 400 sperm raises the random error above 10%. The error is around 14% for 200 cells and around 20% for 100 cells.
Using terms such as oligozoospermia to sort men into groups can be misleading and should be avoided. The authors recommend that papers declare which limits and methods define a group.
The authors report that ejaculates from men in couples who started a pregnancy appear to have much higher results than the WHO reference limits.
Interpretation
This is a short communication that backs a journal checklist for semen analysis studies. The advice follows the sixth-edition WHO manual and the ISO 23162 standard. The authors describe semen quality as a continuum. They call the semen test the first step for the male partner of an infertile couple. The test guides a later workup that also uses history, a physical exam and other tests. The authors note that South America remains under-represented in the WHO reference data. The findings support further study of regional reference limits.
RRM Context
The authors describe infertility as a couple's problem. Restorative reproductive medicine checks both partners. It looks for the cause before treatment. A semen result makes more sense inside the full clinical picture. The authors also note growing evidence that a man's testicular health reflects his overall health.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
Abstract
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.
