The acrosome index, radical buffer capacity and number of isolated progressively motile spermatozoa predict IVF results
Abstract
Background The accuracy by which a number of newly described semen variables can predict either total fertilization failure (TFF) or pregnancy outcome in IVF, has not previously been investigated. The study aim was, therefore, to determine prospectively the predictive value of these variables. Methods The semen variables investigated were the post-wash total progressively motile sperm cell count (TPMC(post-wash)), the acrosome index (AI), 'cytoplasmic residues' and normal sperm morphology, evaluated according to the strict criteria ('strict criteria'), as well as the fast and slow total radical trapping antioxidant potential ('fast TRAP' and 'slow TRAP' respectively). Results The study group (n = 87) showed a mean (+/- SD) number of 10.2 +/- SD retrieved oocytes, 12.6% TFF, a mean fertilization rate of 59.7% and a pregnancy rate of 19.5% (17/87). TFF was significantly predicted by TPMC(post-wash), 'strict criteria', AI and 'cytoplasmic residues' (all P Conclusions Of all the measured and calculated semen variables, TPMC(post-wash) was the best predictor of TFF, whilst AI and 'fast TRAP' were the best predictors of pregnancy after IVF.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Seminal radical buffering capacity is the best predictor of fertilization.
“Earlier, it was shown that the seminal radical buffering capacity is the best predictor of fertilization [62].”
From The Sixth Edition of the WHO Manual for Human Semen Analysis: A Critical Review and SWOT Analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [62]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Sixth Edition of the WHO Manual for Human Semen Analysis: A Critical Review and SWOT Analysis
Boitrelle, F., Shah, R., Saleh, R., Henkel, R., Kandil, H., Chung, E., Vogiatzi, P., Zini, A., Arafa, M., & Agarwal, A. (2021) · Life · doi:10.3390/life11121368 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
“Earlier, it was shown that the seminal radical buffering capacity is the best predictor of fertilization [62].”
Background
- Authors
- Rhemrev, J. P. T., Menkveld, R., Roseboom, T. J., van Overveld, F. W. P. C., Teerlink, T., Lombard, C., & Vermeiden, J. P. W.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Stellenbosch University (ZA)
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- South African Medical Research Council (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- Vermeiden, Jan P.W.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-09
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1885-1892
- ISSN
- 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2350
- OpenAlex
- W2143777159
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (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 › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
- Keywords
- sperm motility, total fertilization failure, IVF outcome prediction, pregnancy rate, sperm morphology, semen quality
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Buffers, Female, Fertilization, Fertilization in Vitro, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Oocytes, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Specimen Handling, Sperm Count, Sperm Motility, Treatment Outcome, Treatment Failure, Pregnancy Rate, Acrosome Reaction
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