Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23817502›Full record

ArticleAsian journal of andrology2013

Semen analysis standardization: is there any problem in Polish laboratories?

Renata Walczak-Jedrzejowska, Katarzyna Marchlewska, Elzbieta Oszukowska, Eliza Filipiak, Leszek Bergier, Jolanta Slowikowska-Hilczer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian journal of andrology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Effect of Karas (Tropical life sciences research · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Clinical Update on Home Testing for Male Fertility.The world journal of men's health · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Renata Walczak-JedrzejowskaDivision of Andrology, Department of Andrology and Reproductive Endocrinology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Katarzyna Marchlewska
Elzbieta Oszukowska
Eliza Filipiak
Leszek Bergier
Jolanta Slowikowska-Hilczer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine the degree of compliance of Polish laboratories with World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations, with regard to semen analysis methodology. A survey requesting information about methods of semen analysis was distributed to employees of 55 laboratories. Respondents who had participated in external seminological workshops (31%) were termed certified respondents (CR), the remaining (69%)-non-certified respondents (NCR). Only one laboratory (6%) in the CR group and none in the NCR were compliant with WHO guidelines for methods and equipment used to evaluate seminal volume, sperm motility, concentration, vitality and morphology. Most problems were of volume measurement (weighing method was reported by 17% of CR and 10% of NCR) and staining method for sperm morphology (Papanicolau or Diff-Quik were found in 33% of CR and 23% of NCR). A three- or four-point grading of sperm motility was used by the majority of respondents; however, 17% of CR and 37% of NCR did not use a laboratory counter to tally spermatozoa. Although a haemocytometer method was used by 80% of laboratories in each group, the improved Neubauer chamber was used only by 42% of CR and 19% of NCR. In each group, 24% of laboratories did not perform a vitality test. Procedural errors and the interchangeable utilization of two or even three methods to analyse a given parameter was observed in both groups. The results indicate a need for standardisation of the methods and continuous, unified training in semen analysis in Polish laboratories.

Indexed as

AdultCell SurvivalClinical Laboratory ServicesHumansMalePolandQuality ControlSemen AnalysisSpermatozoaSperm CountSperm Motility

Identifiers

PMID23817502
PMCPMC3881642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.