Ensuring that Reproductive Laboratories Provide High-Quality Services



Several tests and procedures under reproductive laboratory (RL) scope of activities are complex and not easy to standardize. As a consequence, results can vary widely within and between laboratories which may ultimately impact on health-care decisions and treatment outcome. In order to ensure that results are accurate, precise, and reproducible, and that results from one laboratory can be compared with those provided by others, every RL, regardless of its location, complexity, and size, should implement a quality management (QM) program as a solution for the lack of standardization of actions and procedures.


Proficiency Testing Sperm Retrieval Antisperm Antibody Reproductive Laboratory Quality Management Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Athayde K, Varghese A, Agarwal A. Quality management of the andrology laboratory. In: Rao K, Agarwal A, Srinivas MS, editors. Andrology laboratory manual. 1st ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Pvt Ltd.; 2010. p. 165–72.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    College of American Pathologists. Standards for reproductive laboratories Accreditation, 2009 edition. http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/laboratory_accreditation/build/pdf/standards_repro.pdf. Accessed 20 Sep 2011.
  3. 3.
    Commission of the European Parliament (2004). Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004L0023:EN:NOT. Accessed 14 Feb 2012.
  4. 4.
    Ministry of Health. Brazilian National Agency for Sanitary Survaillance (2006). Resolução no. 33 da Diretoria Colegiada da Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (amended by RDC23 of 27 May 2011 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells). http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/anvisa/2011/res0023_27_05_2011.html. Accessed 14 Feb 2012.
  5. 5.
    De Jonge C. Commentary: forging a partnership between total quality management and the andrology laboratory. J Androl. 2000;21:203–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mayer JF, Jones EL, Dowling-Lacey D, et al. Total quality improvement in the IVF laboratory: choosing indicators of quality. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;23(7):695–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kastrop P. Quality management in the ART laboratory. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7:691–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen: quality assurance. 5th ed. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2010. p. 179–202.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boone WR, Higdon III L, Johnson JE. Quality management issues in the assisted reproduction laboratory. J Reprod Stem Cell Biotechnol. 2010;1:30–107.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    College of American Pathologists. Reproductive laboratory checklist, 2007 edition. http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/laboratory_accreditation/checklists/reproductive_laboratory_sep07.pdf. Accessed 6 March 2012.
  11. 11.
    Castilla JA, Ruiz de Assín R, Gonzalvo MC, et al. External quality control for embryology laboratories. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:68–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Association of Bioanalysts: proficiency testing services. http://www.aab-pts.org. Accessed 27 Jan 2012.
  13. 13.
    European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. Special Interest Group in Andrology: External quality control. http://www.eshre.eu/ESHRE/English/Specialty-Groups/SIG/Andrology/External-Quality-Control/page.aspx/104. Accessed 27 Jan 2012.
  14. 14.
    Wiwanitkit V. Types and frequency of pre-analytical mistakes in the first ISO 9002: 1994 certified clinical laboratory, a 6-month monitoring. BMC Clin Pathol. 2001;1:5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Esteves SC, Couto M. Classificação ISO 5 em laboratório de fertilização in vitro. Rev Soc Bras Contr Contam. 2005;20:8–10.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Esteves SC, Verza Jr S, Gomes AP. Comparison between international standard organization (ISO) type 5 and type 6 cleanrooms combined with volatile organic compounds filtration system for micromanipulation and embryo culture in severe male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2006;86 Suppl 2:S353–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Esteves SC, Schneider DT. Male infertility and assisted reproductive technology: lessons from the IVF. Open Reprod Sci J. 2011;3:138–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verza Jr S, Esteves SC. Microsurgical versus conventional single-biopsy testicular sperm extraction in nonobstructive azoospermia: a prospective controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(Suppl):S5.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Esteves SC, Miyaoka R, Agarwal A. Sperm retrieval techniques for assisted reproduction. Int Braz J Urol. 2011;37:570–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Esteves SC, Miyaoka R, Agarwal A. An update on the clinical assessment of the infertile male. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66:691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pacey AA. Is quality assurance in semen analysis still really necessary? A view from the Andrology Laboratory. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1105–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jequier AM. Is quality assurance in semen analysis still really necessary? A clinician’s viewpoint. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2039–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keel BA, Sternbridge TW, Pineda G, Serafy NT. Lack of standardisation in performance of the semen analysis among laboratories in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:603–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Esteves SC. Lack of standardization in performance of the semen analysis among laboratories in the United States [Editorial comment]. Int Braz J Urol. 2002;28:485–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Riddell D, Pacey A, Whittington K. Lack of compliance in UK andrology laboratories to World Health Organisation recommendations for sperm morphology assessment. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3441–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Esteves SC, Zini A, Aziz N, Alvarez JG, Sabanegh Jr ES, Agarwal A. Critical appraisal of World Health Organization’s new reference values for human semen characteristics and effect on diagnosis and treatment of subfertile men. Urology. 2012;79:16–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ANDROFERT, Andrology and Human Reproduction ClinicCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Andrology Laboratory and Reproductive Tissue BankCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland Clinic FoundationClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations