Cited by 83Sperm and Testicular FunctionReproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Biology and Fertility

The sperm deformity index: a reliable predictor of the outcome of oocyte fertilization in vitro

Open access
Aziz, Nabil, Buchan, Iain, Taylor, Clare, Kingsland, Charles R., Lewis-Jones, Iwan·1996·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

Objective To evaluate a novel expression of sperm morphological parameters, the sperm deformity index, as a predictor of fertilization in vitro. Design Prospective blind clinical trial. Setting Academic tertiary referral center. Intervention(s) Detailed sperm morphological assessment applying strict morphological criteria and a multiple entry technique for an unselected male population undergoing IVF. The sperm deformity index, defined as the average number of deformities per sperm assessed, was calculated. Patient(s) One hundred fifty-eight patients undergoing IVF treatment. Females with conditions negatively influencing fertilization were excluded. Main outcome measure(s) Fertilization rates and pregnancy. Result(s) Seventy-three percent of patients achieved fertilization. Patients achieving fertilization had a significantly higher median proportion of normal forms and a significantly lower median sperm deformity index than the nonfertilizers. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves identified cutoff points that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity at sperm deformity index 1.6 and normal forms 4%. The sperm deformity index had a greater sensitivity (96%), specificity (72%), positive predictive value (90%), and negative predictive value (86%) than the proportion of normal sperm morphology (87%, 69%, 89%, 66%, respectively) at the optimal cutoff points. The area under the ROC curve was greater for the sperm deformity index (0.875) than for the proportion…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58697-x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aziz, N., Buchan, I., Taylor, C., Kingsland, C. R., & Lewis-Jones, I.
Affiliations
University of Liverpool (GB)
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1996-12
Volume
66
Issue
6
Pages
1000-1008
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W19512496
Cited by
83
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Sperm and Testicular Function
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
Keywords
sperm morphology, in vitro fertilization, male infertility, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, pregnancy outcomes, sperm quality assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Double-Blind Method, Female, Fertilization, Fertilization in Vitro, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Oocytes, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Prospective Studies, Reference Values, Sperm Count, Sperm Motility, Spermatozoa, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review