STUDY QUESTION Do publications that involve the interpretation of the results of a basic semen analysis, published in Human Reproduction and Fertility & Sterility between 2011 and 2020, give sufficient evidence in their methodology to demonstrate that they followed the technical methods recommended in the fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) laboratory manual, entitled WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen (WHO5)? SUMMARY ANSWER Evidence of methodological agreement of studies with the WHO5 recommendations was low, despite 70% of papers stating that they followed WHO5 recommendations. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A basic semen analysis is currently an integral part of infertility investigations of the male, but method standardization in laboratories remains an issue. The different editions of the WHO manual for the basic semen analysis (WHO1–6) have attempted to address this by providing increasingly rigorous methodological protocols to reduce experimental error. However, to what extent these methods are followed by studies that involve the interpretation of the results of basic semen analysis remains unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A survey of the technical methods used to perform a basic semen analysis was conducted on studies published in two leading reproduction journals (Human Reproduction and Fertility & Sterility) between 2011 and 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The literature search was performed on the electronic databases PUBMED and MEDLINE Ovid between January 2021 and March 2021. The MeSH terms included in the search were ‘sperm concentration’ OR ‘sperm motility’ OR ‘sperm morphology’ OR ‘sperm vitality’ OR ‘male fertility’ AND ‘human spermatozoa’ NOT ‘animals’. A total of 122 studies were available for analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE In total, 70% of the studies cited WHO5 in their methods section. Of the remaining studies, 10% cited the fourth edition of the WHO laboratory manual (WHO4), 7% cited both WHO4 and WHO5, 1% cited the third edition of the WHO laboratory manual (WHO3), and 12% did not cite the WHO at all. Overall methodological agreement with WHO5 recommendations was poor, with the main reason for this lack of agreement being that the research studies did not disclose specific details of the technical methods and equipment used. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION In the case of studies that did not disclose any specific technical methods that they used, we did not attempt to contact these authors and so were unable to confirm the agreement between their technical methods and WHO5 recommendations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our findings suggest there is an urgent need to develop strategies to address standardization in reporting the results of a semen analysis for publication. This is particularly timely given the recent publication of WHO6 and ISO standard 23162 for the basic examination of human semen. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) There was no funding for this project. C.L.R.B., as an employee of the University of Dundee, serves on the Scientific Advisory board of ExSeed Health (from October 2021, financial compensation to the University of Dundee) and is a scientific consultant for Exscientia (from September 2021, financial compensation to the University of Dundee). C.L.R.B. has previously received a fee from Cooper Surgical for lectures on scientific research methods outside the submitted work (2020) and Ferring for a lecture on male reproductive health (2021). C.L.R.B. is Editor for RBMO. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.

中文翻译：

---

2011 年至 2020 年间在两家主要生殖期刊上发表的研究是否表明它们遵循了 WHO5 对基本精液分析的建议？

研究问题 2011 年至 2020 年间发表在《人类生殖与生育与不育》杂志上的涉及基本精液分析结果解释的出版物是否在其方法论中提供了足够的证据来证明他们遵循了第五版中推荐的技术方法世界卫生组织 (WHO) 实验室手册，题为《世界卫生组织人类精液检验和处理实验室手册》(WHO5)？摘要答案 尽管 70% 的论文表明他们遵循了 WHO5 的建议，但研究方法学与 WHO5 的建议一致的证据很少。已知信息 基本精液分析目前是男性不育症调查的一个组成部分，但实验室方法标准化仍然是一个问题。WHO 基本精液分析手册的不同版本 (WHO1-6) 试图通过提供越来越严格的方法学协议来解决这个问题，以减少实验错误。然而，涉及解释基本精液分析结果的研究在多大程度上遵循这些方法仍然未知。研究设计、规模、持续时间 对 2011 年至 2020 年间在两本主要生殖期刊（人类生殖和生育与不育）上发表的研究进行了一项关于用于执行基本精液分析的技术方法的调查。参与者/材料、环境、方法2021 年 1 月至 2021 年 3 月期间，对电子数据库 PUBMED 和 MEDLINE Ovid 进行了文献检索。搜索中包含的 MeSH 术语是“精子浓度”或“精子活力”或“精子形态”或“精子活力”或“男性生育力”和“人类精子”而不是“动物”。共有 122 项研究可供分析。主要结果和机会的作用 总共有 70% 的研究在其方法部分引用了 WHO5。在其余研究中，10% 引用了 WHO 实验室手册第四版（WHO4），7% 同时引用了 WHO4 和 WHO5，1% 引用了 WHO 实验室手册第三版（WHO3），12% 没有引用世卫组织。与 WHO5 建议的总体方法学一致性较差，不一致的主要原因是研究没有披露所用技术方法和设备的具体细节。限制，谨慎的理由 对于没有披露他们使用的任何具体技术方法的研究，我们没有尝试联系这些作者，因此无法确认他们的技术方法与 WHO5 建议之间的一致性。研究结果的更广泛意义 我们的研究结果表明，迫切需要制定战略来解决报告精液分析结果以供发表的标准化问题。鉴于最近发布了关于人类精液基本检查的 WHO6 和 ISO 标准 23162，这尤其及时。研究资金/竞争利益 这个项目没有资金。CLRB 作为邓迪大学的一名员工，在 ExSeed Health 的科学顾问委员会任职（自 2021 年 10 月起，向邓迪大学提供经济补偿），并且是 Exscientia 的科学顾问（从 2021 年 9 月起，向邓迪大学提供经济补偿）。CLRB 此前已从 Cooper Surgical 获得有关提交作品之外的科学研究方法讲座的费用（2020 年）和 Ferring 的男性生殖健康讲座（2021 年）。CLRB 是 RBMO 的编辑。试用注册号 N/A。