Cited by 25Sperm and Testicular FunctionReproductive Health and TechnologiesMale Reproductive Health Studies

Sperm morphology assessment using David’s classification: time to switch to strict criteria? Prospective comparative analysis in a selected IVF population: Sperm morphology assessment using DC and IVF

Blanchard, M., Haguenoer, K., Apert, A., Poret, H., Barthélémy, C., Royère, D., Guérif, F.·2011·International Journal of Andrology

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare assessment of sperm morphology by using David's classification (DC), a method of manual analysis most common in France, with a computer-assisted method (Integrated Visual Optical System) based on the strict criteria (CASA SC) for their ability to predict fertilization in a selected in vitro fertilization (IVF) population. A total of 120 couples engaged in IVF protocols were prospectively included in the study. To focus mainly on sperm morphology, couples were excluded in cases of abnormalities of sperm concentration and/or motility and immunological factors and when a low number of oocytes were collected. Sperm morphology analysis was performed on the day of oocyte retrieval by the same trained biologist. Our results showed a moderate correlation between the two techniques (r = 0.49). The DC sperm morphology analysis was less indicative of fertilization than CASA SC (r = 0.07, p = 0.47 vs. r = 0.22, p = 0.014). Using receiver-operating characteristics analysis, we showed that DC was not discriminating in the prediction of fertilization (AUC = 0.572). DC seemed less appropriate for the prediction of fertilization success or failure. In contrast, with CASA SC, the previously determined cut-off value of around 14% was confirmed (AUC = 0.735, cut-off = 6%). Our results argue in favour of the replacement of DC by SC to tend towards worldwide standardization.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2010.01066.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

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?

  • Other sperm morphology classifications exist, but they are not accepted globally and are used in certain countries only.

    “Aside from the classification used by the WHO, other sperm morphology classifications also exist. However, they are not accepted globally but are used in certain countries only (33,34).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blanchard, M., Haguenoer, K., Apert, A., Poret, H., Barthélémy, C., Royère, D., & Guérif, F.
Affiliations
Université de Tours (FR)
Corresponding author
Guérif, F.
Venue
International Journal of Andrology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-05-19
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
145-152
ISSN
0105-6263 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116106822
Cited by
25
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Andrology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (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, computer-assisted sperm analysis, fertilization prediction, in vitro fertilization, oocyte retrieval
MeSH terms
Adult, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Fertilization, Fertilization in Vitro, Humans, Male, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, ROC Curve, Spermatozoa, Pregnancy Rate, Semen Analysis

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