Scoring human sperm morphology using Testsimplets and Diff-Quik slides


      To compare two staining methods to assess sperm morphology: Diff-Quik (DQ), which is the fastest of the recommended techniques, and Testsimplets (TS), a technique that uses prestained slides and is quite popular in in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers.


      Prospective study.


      Patients at the Sterility Center of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit of the Hospital of S.S. Cosma and Damiano (Azienda USL 3 of Pistoia, Italy).


      104 randomly enrolled male patients evaluated by the seminology laboratory.



      Main Outcome Measure(s)

      Statistical comparison of sperm morphology results obtained after staining of semen samples both with DQ and TS.


      Our data show that TS gives a statistically significantly lower number of normal forms than DQ (median: 6% [range: 0–29%] vs. 12% [range: 0–40%], respectively) as well as an overestimation of sperm head defects (median: 92.0% [range: 67%–100%] vs. 82.3% [range: 55%–100%], respectively).


      The two staining methods should not be considered equivalent. Specifically, the lower reference limit established by the World Health Organization is not appropriate when sperm morphology is assessed by TS. The routine application of TS in the evaluation of sperm morphology is therefore not recommended because it leads to an overestimation of patients with sperm morphology values below the lower reference limit (4%), thus potentially influencing clinical decisions.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment


      Subscribe to Fertility and Sterility
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • World Health Organization
        Laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen.
        5th ed. World Health Organization, Geneva2010
        • Cooper T.G.
        • Noonan E.
        • von Eckardstein S.
        • Auger J.
        • Baker H.W.G.
        • Behre H.M.
        • et al.
        World Heath Organization reference values for human semen characteristics.
        Hum Reprod Update. 2010; 16: 231-245
        • World Health Organization
        Laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction.
        4th ed. Cambridge University Press, New York1999
        • Mortimer D.
        • Leslie E.E.
        • Kelly R.W.
        • Templeton A.A.
        Morphological selection of human spermatozoa in vivo and in vitro.
        J Reprod Fert. 1982; 64: 391-399
        • Fredricsson B.
        • Björk G.
        Morphological of postcoital spermatozoa in the cervical secretion and its clinical significance.
        Fertil Steril. 1977; 28: 841-845
        • Menkveld R.
        • Stander F.S.
        • Kotze T.J.
        • Kruger T.F.
        • van Zyl J.A.
        The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to strict criteria.
        Hum Reprod. 1990; 5: 586-592
        • Kruger T.F.
        • Menkveld R.
        • Stander F.S.H.
        • Lombard C.J.
        • Van der Merwe J.P.
        • van Zyl J.A.
        • et al.
        Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in-vitro fertilization.
        Fertil Steril. 1986; 46: 1118-1123
        • Prinosilova P.
        • Kruger T.
        • Ozkavukcu S.
        • Vigue L.
        • Kovanci E.
        • Huszar G.
        Selectivity of hyaluronic acid binding for spermatozoa with normal Tygerberg strict morphology.
        Reprod Biomed Online. 2009; 18: 177-183
        • Coetzee K.
        • Kruger T.F.
        • Lombard C.J.
        Predictive value of normal sperm morphology: a structured literature review.
        Hum Reprod Update. 1998; 4: 73-82
        • Ombelet W.
        • Flourie F.
        • Vandeput H.
        • Bosmans E.
        • Cox A.
        • Janssen M.
        • et al.
        Teratozoospermia and in vitro fertilization: a randomized prospective study.
        Hum Reprod. 1994; 9: 1479-1484
        • Berger D.S.
        • AbdelHafez F.
        • Russell H.
        • Goldfarb J.
        • Desai N.
        Severe teratozoospermia and its influence on pronuclear morphology, embryonic cleavage and compaction.
        Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011; 9: 37
        • French D.B.
        • Sabanegh Jr., E.S.
        • Goldfarb J.
        • Desai N.
        Does severe teratozoospermia affect blastocyst formation, live birth rate, and clinical outcome parameters in ICSI cycles?.
        Fertil Steril. 2010; 93: 1097-1103
        • Svalander P.
        • Jakobsson A.H.
        • Forsberg A.S.
        • Bengtsson A.C.
        • Wikland M.
        The outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection is unrelated to “strict criteria” sperm morphology.
        Hum Reprod. 1996; 11: 1019-1022
        • Mortimer D.
        • Menkveld R.
        Sperm morphology assessment—historical perspectives and current opinions.
        J Androl. 2001; 22: 192-205
        • Papanicolaou G.N.
        A new procedure for staining vaginal smears.
        Science. 1942; 95: 438-439
        • Shorr E.
        A new technique for staining vaginal smears. III: A single differential stain.
        Science. 1941; 94: 545-546
        • Kruger T.F.
        • Ackermann S.B.
        • Simmons K.F.
        • Swanson R.J.
        • Brugo S.S.
        • Acosta A.A.
        A quick, reliable staining technique for human sperm morphology.
        Arch Androl. 1987; 18: 275-277
        • Menkveld R.
        • Lacquet F.A.
        • Kruger T.F.
        • Lombard C.J.
        • Sanchez Sarmiento C.A.
        • de Villiers A.
        Effects of different staining and washing procedures on the results of human sperm morphology evaluation by manual and computerized methods.
        Andrologia. 1997; 29: 1-7
        • Henkel R.
        • Schreiber G.
        • Sturmhoefel A.
        • Hipler U.-C.
        • Zermann D.H.
        • Menkveld R.
        Comparison of three staining methods for the morphological evaluation of human spermatozoa.
        Fertil Steril. 2008; 89: 449-455
        • Schirren C.
        • Eckhart U.
        • Jachczik R.
        • Carstensen C.A.
        Morphological differentiation of human spermatozoa with Testsimplets slides.
        Andrologia. 1977; 9: 191-192
        • Ombelet W.
        • Pollet H.
        • Bosmans E.
        • Vereecken A.
        Results of a questionnaire on sperm morphology assessment.
        Hum Reprod. 1997; 12: 1015-1020
        • Ragni G.
        • Marzioli S.
        • Levenberg A.
        • Guercilena S.
        Comparison of the various techniques of identifyng human spermatozoa morfology.
        Acta Eur Fertil. 1984; 15: 437-440
        • Cornbleet P.J.
        • Gochman N.
        Incorrect least-squares regression coefficients in method-comparison analysis.
        Clin Chem. 1979; 25: 432-438
        • Bland J.M.
        • Altman D.G.
        Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.
        Lancet. 1986; 1: 307-310
        • Cohen J.
        A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.
        Educ Psychol Meas. 1960; 20: 37-46
        • Landis J.R.
        • Koch G.G.
        The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
        Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174
        • Sim J.
        • Wright C.C.
        The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirement.
        Phys Ther. 2005; 85: 257-268
        • Menkveld R.
        • Wong W.Y.
        • Lombard C.J.
        • Wetzels A.M.
        • Thomas C.M.G.
        • Merkus H.M.
        • et al.
        Semen parameters, including WHO and strict criteria morphology, in a fertile and sub fertile population: an effort towards standardization of in-vivo thresholds.
        Hum Reprod. 2001; 16: 1165-1171
        • Calamera J.C.
        • Vilar O.
        Comparative study of sperm morphology with three different staining procedures.
        Andrologia. 1979; 11: 255-258
        • Riddell D.
        • Pacey A.
        • Whittington K.
        Lack of compliance by UK andrology laboratories with World Health Organization recommendations for sperm morphology assessment.
        Hum Reprod. 2005; 20: 3441-3445
        • World Health Organization
        Laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction.
        3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York1992
        • Abraham-Peskir J.V.
        • Chantler E.
        • Uggerhoj E.
        • Fedder J.
        Response of midpiece vesicles on human sperm to osmotic stress.
        Hum Reprod. 2002; 17: 375-382
        • Cooper T.G.
        • Yeung C.-H.
        • Fetic S.
        • Sobhani A.
        • Nieschlag E.
        Cytoplasmic droplets are normal structures of human sperm but are not well preserved by routine procedures for assessing sperm morphology.
        Hum Reprod. 2004; 19: 2283-2288
        • Aitken R.
        • Krausz C.
        • Buckingham D.
        Relationships between biochemical markers for residual sperm cytoplasm, reactive oxygen species generation, and the presence of leukocytes and precursor germ cells in human sperm suspensions.
        Mol Reprod Dev. 1994; 39: 268-279
        • Harasymowycz J.
        • Ball L.
        • Seidel G.
        Evaluation of bovine spermatozoal morphologic features after staining or fixation.
        Am J Vet Res. 1976; 37: 1053-1057
        • Katz D.F.
        • Overstreet J.W.
        • Samuels S.J.
        • Niswander P.W.
        • Bloom T.D.
        • Lewis E.L.
        Morphometric Analysis of spermatozoa in the assessment of human male fertility.
        J Androl. 1986; 7: 203-210
        • Barratt C.L.R.
        On the accuracy and clinical value of semen laboratory tests.
        Hum Reprod. 1995; 10: 247-252
        • Schoenfeld C.
        • Amelar R.D.
        • Dubin L.
        • Amelar S.
        A new staining technique for the rapid determination of the morphologic characteristics of sperm.
        Fertil Steril. 1981; 36: 408-410