ArticleAndrology2025
Evaluation of structural problems in the application of strict criteria for sperm morphology assessment.
Article in Andrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Recommendations for Human Sperm Morphology Assessment in 2025: An Expert Review From the French BLEFCO Group.Andrology · 2026Guideline
- Evaluation of technicians' ability to accurately identify sperm morphology through EQA programs in China: a 5-year nationwide study (2019-2024).Asian journal of andrology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of structural problems in the application of strict criteria for sperm morphology assessment.Andrology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe WHO manual for basic semen analysis and ISO 23162 describe sperm morphology assessment as a standard part of semen analysis. Older studies showed a correlation between morphology results and (artificial) conception. In more recent studies this relationship was less apparent and there is more emphasis on sperm morphology as a marker for healthy spermatogenesis (and general male health). Meantime, many laboratories ceased morphology assessment, probably due to unfamiliarity with this paradigmatic shift and to technical difficulties in the assessment, like the interpretation of morphological criteria.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to identify morphological criteria with high variability in results in the Dutch External Quality Control (EQC) program. MATERIAL AND
methodsOver the period 2015-2020, a total of 72 photos of sperm cells along with dichotomous propositions based on 14 criteria as defined in WHO5 (2010) were distributed in the Dutch EQC program for semen analysis. The EQC results were evaluated for variability per criterion and for trends in time.
resultsBetween 2015 and 2020, 40 to 60 laboratories assessed the photos. Criteria with low variability between participants were related to acrosomal vacuoles, excessive residual cytoplasm, and tail metrics. In contrast, head ovality, regularity of head and midpiece contours, and alignment of the major axis of the midpiece and head led to the highest variability in outcomes. In general, there was a slightly positive trend (lower variability) in time, except for the criteria with the highest variability (stable or declining trend). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionThis study indicates that there are (high) variabilities in the interpretation of the morphological criteria, leading to inconsistent outcomes of morphology assessment. The results are discussed from the perspective of imperfections in definitions and examples of the criteria as given in the WHO manuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.