Inconsistent Adoption of World Health Organization V (2010) Semen Analysis Reference Ranges in the United States Six Years After Publication

dc.contributor.authorLewis, Kevin C.
dc.contributor.authorLam, Isaac
dc.contributor.authorNieb, Jacob
dc.contributor.authorLam, Grace
dc.contributor.authorDesai, Anuj S.
dc.contributor.authorMazur, Daniel J.
dc.contributor.authorKahn, Barbara
dc.contributor.authorKeeter, Mary Kate
dc.contributor.authorTatem, Alex
dc.contributor.authorHehemann, Marah
dc.contributor.authorFrainey, Brendan T.
dc.contributor.authorBennett, Nelson
dc.contributor.authorBrannigan, Robert E.
dc.contributor.departmentUrology, School of Medicineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-24T19:21:11Z
dc.date.available2019-01-24T19:21:11Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractObjective To determine the percentage of laboratories in the United States that have adopted the World Health Organization 2010 (WHO 5) semen analysis (SA) reference values six years after their publication. Methods Laboratories were identified via three approaches: using the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) website, the CDC's 2015 Assisted Reproductive Technology Fertility Clinical Success Rate Report, and automated web searches. Laboratories were contacted by phone or email to obtain de-identified SA reports and reference ranges. Results We contacted 617 laboratories in 46 states, of which 208 (26.7%) laboratories in 45 states were included in our analysis. 132 (63.5%) laboratories used WHO 5 criteria, 57 (27.4%) used WHO 4 criteria, and 19 (9.1%) used other criteria. WHO 5 criteria adoption rates varied by geographic region, ranging from 87.5% (35/40) in the Midwest to 50.0% (33/66) in the West. There was a greater adoption rate of WHO 5 reference values in academic affiliated (23/26, 88.5%) compared to non-academic affiliated laboratories (110/182, 60.4%) (P=0.028). Conclusion While the majority of laboratories have adopted WHO 5 criteria following its release six years ago, a large percentage (36.5%) use what is now considered outdated criteria. This variability could result in the characterization of a male's semen values as being “within reference range” at one center and “outside of reference range” at another. This inconsistency in classification may result in confusion for the both patient and physician and potentially shift the burden of infertility evaluation and treatment to the female partner.en_US
dc.eprint.versionAuthor's manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.citationLewis, K. C., Lam, I., Nieb, J., Lam, G., Desai, A. S., Mazur, D. J., … Brannigan, R. E. (2018). Inconsistent Adoption of World Health Organization V (2010) Semen Analysis Reference Ranges in the United States Six Years After Publication. Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.09.041en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/18222
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.urology.2018.09.041en_US
dc.relation.journalUrologyen_US
dc.rightsPublisher Policyen_US
dc.sourceAuthoren_US
dc.subjectinfertilityen_US
dc.subjectlaboratory testingen_US
dc.subjectsemen analysisen_US
dc.titleInconsistent Adoption of World Health Organization V (2010) Semen Analysis Reference Ranges in the United States Six Years After Publicationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Lewis_2019_inconsistent.pdf
Size:
491.71 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: