GuidelineAndrology2026
Recommendations for Human Sperm Morphology Assessment in 2025: An Expert Review From the French BLEFCO Group.
Guideline in Andrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNumerous publications have questioned the lack of analytical reliability and clinical relevance of sperm morphology assessment for infertility workup and before use of assisted reproductive techniques (ART). There is a huge variability in the performance and interpretation of this test. It has become necessary to evaluate its true medical service rendered to the patient.
objectivesTo develop clinical guidelines for use of spermatozoa morphology assessment during male fertility check-up and before ART. MATERIALS AND
methodsThese guidelines were produced following a pre-defined standard methodology for narrative and Patient Intervention Comparison Outcomes (PICO) questions. The French Working Group (WG) on Sperm Morphology Assessment consisted of 15 members including an expert in statistics.
resultsR1: WG does not recommend systematic detailed analysis of abnormalities (or groups of abnormalities) during sperm morphology assessment. R2: WG recommends that the laboratory should use a qualitative or quantitative method for detection of a monomorphic abnormality (globozoospermia, macrocephalic spermatozoa syndrome, pinhead spermatozoa syndrome, multiple flagellar abnormalities). The result may be given as an interpretative commentary or as a numerical report of the percentage of detailed abnormalities. R3: There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the clinical value of indexes of multiple sperm defects (TZI, SDI, MAI) in investigation of infertility and before ART. Accordingly, the working group does not recommend the use of sperm abnormality indexes (TZI, SDI, MAI) in sperm morphology assessment. R4: WG gives a positive opinion on the use of automated systems based on cytological analysis after staining after qualification of the operators, and validation of the analytical performance within their own laboratory. R5: WG does not recommend using the percentage of spermatozoa with normal morphology as a prognostic criterion before IUI, IVF, or ICSI, or as a tool for selecting the ART procedure. DISCUSSION: This article examines the clinical interest of sperm morphology assessment during fertility check-up and before ART. The overall level of evidence from studies is low, challenging current practices regarding sperm morphology assessment.
conclusionThese guidelines suggest a significant simplification of sperm morphology assessment in the light of the examined publications while maintaining the detection of monomorphic sperm abnormalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.