The Pan African medical journal · 2016
[Inter-and intra-operator variability in the analysis of semen parameters: results from a quality control program].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Daoud Salima, Chakroun-Feki Nozha, Sellami Afifa, Ammar-Keskes Leila, Rebai Tarek
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Semen analysis is a key part of male infertility investigation. The necessity of quality management implementation in the andrology laboratory has been recognized in order to ensure the reliability of its results. The aim of this study was to evaluate intra- and inter-individual variability in the assessment of semen parameters in our laboratory through a quality control programme.
METHODS: Four participants from the laboratory with different experience levels have participated in this study. Semen samples of varying quality were assessed for sperm motility, concentration and morphology and the results were used to evaluate inter-participant variability. In addition, replicates of each semen sample were analyzed to determine intra-individual variability for semen parameters analysis.
RESULTS: The average values of inter-participant coefficients of variation for sperm motility, concentration and morphology were 12.8%, 19.8% and 48.9% respectively. The mean intra-participant coefficients of variation were, respectively, 6.9%, 12.3% and 42.7% for sperm motility, concentration and morphology. Despite some random errors of under- or overestimation, the overall results remained within the limits of acceptability for all participants. Sperm morphology assessment was particularly influenced by the participant's level of experience.
CONCLUSION: The present data emphasize the need for appropriate training of the laboratory staff and for regular participation in internal quality control programmes in order to improve the reliability of laboratory results.
METHODS: Four participants from the laboratory with different experience levels have participated in this study. Semen samples of varying quality were assessed for sperm motility, concentration and morphology and the results were used to evaluate inter-participant variability. In addition, replicates of each semen sample were analyzed to determine intra-individual variability for semen parameters analysis.
RESULTS: The average values of inter-participant coefficients of variation for sperm motility, concentration and morphology were 12.8%, 19.8% and 48.9% respectively. The mean intra-participant coefficients of variation were, respectively, 6.9%, 12.3% and 42.7% for sperm motility, concentration and morphology. Despite some random errors of under- or overestimation, the overall results remained within the limits of acceptability for all participants. Sperm morphology assessment was particularly influenced by the participant's level of experience.
CONCLUSION: The present data emphasize the need for appropriate training of the laboratory staff and for regular participation in internal quality control programmes in order to improve the reliability of laboratory results.