Cited by 677Sperm and Testicular FunctionReproductive Health and TechnologiesMale Reproductive Health Studies

The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria

Menkveld, Roelof, Stander, Frik S.H., Kotze, Theunis J.vW., Kruger, Thinus F., Zyl, Johannes A.van·1990·Human Reproduction

Abstract

The evaluation of the morphology of human spermatozoa varies widely between and sometimes even within laboratories. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the method that has been developed in our laboratory and which resulted in the use of stricter criteria for the evaluation of sperm morphology is a practical, reliable and repeatable method and to establish the within and between observer variations. The criteria used for a 'normal' spermatozoon are based on the appearance of spermatozoa found in the mucus of the upper endocervical canal. The results of the morphological evaluations of 26 samples by four observers were statistically analysed by various methods. The method of Barnett showed a high degree of relative accuracy between observers with error variances of between 2.89 and 19.67 as well as high Spearman rank correlation coefficients of between 0.8675 and 0.6537 (P less than 0.0003). The Spearman correlation coefficient for 15 duplicate evaluations by one observer was 0.9650 (P less than 0.0001) while the coefficients of variation for repeated evaluations of single samples were also within acceptable limits. Based on these results, the method described in this article allows comparable and reliable results between and within observers to be obtained. From this and other studies it can be concluded that the method also has a good prognostic value for the prediction of expected IVF fertilization, the hamster test and hemizona assay.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137150

Cites

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?

  • Menkveld et al. proposed a Tygerberg strict criteria based on detailed observation of spermatozoa, particularly from the postcoital cervical mucus.

    “Menkveld et al., in later years, proposed a Tygerberg strict criteria based on detailed observation of spermatozoa, particularly from the postcoital cervical mucus (27).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Menkveld, R., Stander, F. S. H., Kotze, T. J. V., Kruger, T. F., & Zyl, J. A. V.
Affiliations
  • Tygerberg Hospital (ZA)
  • South African Medical Research Council (ZA)
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
1990-07
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
586-592
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2147452407
Cited by
677
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 29
FWCI
7.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • 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
sperm morphology, sperm head morphology, interobserver variability, intraobserver variability, method reliability, hemizona assay, semen analysis
MeSH terms
Cytodiagnosis, Humans, Infertility, Male, Male, Quality Control, Specimen Handling, Spermatozoa

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