Cited by 265Sperm and Testicular FunctionReproductive Health and TechnologiesMale Reproductive Health Studies

Semen parameters, including WHO and strict criteria morphology, in a fertile and subfertile population: an effort towards standardization of in-vivo thresholds

Menkveld, R.·2001·Human Reproduction

Abstract

In this study, the semen analysis results of a fertile population were compared with those from a subfertile population, in order to establish normal cut-off values for the standard semen parameters with the aid of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The fertile group comprised healthy males (n = 107) without any history of fertility problems, the partners of whom had had a spontaneous pregnancy within one year of unprotected intercourse and were pregnant at the time of the male's inclusion into the study. A total of 103 males from couples attending the infertility clinic, and with an initial sperm count of <20x10(6)/ml were recruited to form the subfertile population. The best discriminating parameter between the two populations was sperm morphology evaluated according to WHO criteria at a cut-off point of 31% normal spermatozoa. The other cut-off values were at 8% for the acrosome index, 45% for motility, and 4% normal spermatozoa for strict criteria. Recalculating the ROC curve cut-off values based on an assumed 50% prevalence of subfertility in an assisted reproductive setting, the cut-off points were reduced to 21% and 3% normal spermatozoa for WHO and strict criteria respectively. For motility, the new cut-off value was at 20% motile spermatozoa, for motility quality at 3.5 (on a scale of 1-6), the acrosome index at 3% normal acrosomes, and the teratozoospermia index at 2.09.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/16.6.1165

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

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The TZI cannot assess men's fertility potential because of significant overlap in values between fertile and sub-fertile populations.

    “The TZI cannot assess men's fertility potential because of significant overlap in values between fertile and sub‐fertile populations, as demonstrated by [71] and published in the WHO recommendations, fifth edition.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Menkveld, R.
Affiliations
Stellenbosch University (ZA)
Corresponding author
Menkveld, R.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2001-06-01
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
1165-1171
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2109506976
Cited by
265
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Sperm and Testicular Function
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Male Reproductive Health Studies
Keywords
semen parameters, sperm morphology, WHO criteria, subfertility, sperm motility, male infertility, receiver operating characteristic
MeSH terms
Acrosome, Adult, Humans, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Infertility, Male, Male, Reference Values, ROC Curve, Semen, Sperm Count, Sperm Motility, Spermatozoa, World Health Organization

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