Effect of the technical variability of counting chambers upon the interpretation of sperm concentration results.

Research Question: Does the choice of sperm-counting chamber affect the proportion of samples generating results with an erroneous interpretation?

Design: Laboratories in an external quality assurance programme were sent 141 semen samples over a 12-year period and asked to return the sperm concentration and whether or not the result was abnormal. Only those using 5th edition of the World Health Organization manual (WHO5) interpretation criteria were included. Submissions from specialist fertility laboratories were used to calculate assigned values for each sample.

Analytical variability and interpretation of results of a 3-category sperm motility assessment: 5 years' of an Australian external quality assurance programme.

Research Question: How do laboratories perform when assessing sperm motility with a 3-category system and interpreting results as per the fifth edition of the World Health Organization manual (WHO5), and will the use of a 4-category system as per the sixth edition of the WHO manual improve their performance?

Design: Eighty video recordings of sperm samples were sent to over 200 laboratories spanning a 5-year period for the assessment of progressive motility. The results were reviewed relative to the all-laboratory trimmed mean (ALTM) in terms of the minimum and maximum values reported, the coefficient of variation and the proportion of laboratories indicating an abnormal result. A further 20 video recordings were sent over 1 year, with 6-11 laboratories per distribution adjusting to reporting rapid progressive motility using the 4-category system.

Human sperm morphology assessment since 2010: experience of an Australian external quality assurance programme.

Research Question: Which classification criteria of sperm normality were used after the publication of the World Health Organization (WHO) 5th Edition manual (WHO5), and how did the laboratories perform?

Design: Semen samples were sent to enrolled laboratories over a 10-year period for the determination of the proportion of spermatozoa with normal morphology. The coefficient of variation was used to indicate the level of precision between laboratories.

Results: Before the publication of WHO5, at least six different classification criteria were in use.

Performance of four chambers to measure sperm concentration: results from an external quality assurance programme.

Research Question: What are the changes in the use of four types of counting chambers by laboratories enrolled in an Australian-based external quality assurance programme, and what are their accuracy and precision?

Design: Samples of latex beads of known concentration up to 20 × 10/ml were distributed quarterly to enrolled laboratories over a 12-year period. The results of each distribution were then used to calculate a bias relative to the target value as an indicator of accuracy and a coefficient of variation to indicate the level of precision.

Results: The proportion of laboratories in 2007-2008 using improved Neubauer haemocytometers (44%), Makler® (9%) and Vetriplast chambers (19%) remained constant in 2018-2019, unlike Kova chamber users (20%), which reduced.

Within-laboratory and between-laboratory variability in the measurement of anti-müllerian hormone determined within an external quality assurance scheme.

Ten laboratories in an external quality assurance scheme used the same assay to measure anti-müllerian hormone concentration (Beckman Coulter Gen II) and received twenty serum samples distributed over a 15 month period. The mean bias for all results was only -0.089%, but there was large coefficient of repeatability of 38.

The use of latex beads in external quality assurance and internal quality control for routine semen analysis.

The usefulness of latex beads of defined concentration was assessed as a substitute for sperm in the performance of External Quality Assurance (EQA) and Internal Quality Control (IQC) of semen analysis. Within the EQA programme, mean±SEM bias (%) was significantly reduced in 2007 compared to 2002 for both specialist (6.0%±5.