The validity of the postcoital test

      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.


      Opinion is divided on the clinical usefulness of the postcoital (Sims-Huhner) test in diagnosing infertility. To evaluate the validity of this test, we reviewed the world's literature in English and calculated four indexes of validity for each study with sufficient information. The sensitivity of the test ranged from 0.09 to 0.71, specificity from 0.62 to 1.00, predictive value of abnormal from 0.56 to 1.00, and predictive value of normal from 0.25 to 0.75. In addition to the problem of poor validity, the test suffers from a lack of standard methodology, lack of a uniform definition of normal, and unknown reproducibility. The postcoital test lacks validity as a test for infertility.

      Key words

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

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Fineberg HV
        • Hiatt HH
        Evaluation of medical practices. The case for technology assessment.
        N Engl J Med. 1979; 301: 1086-1091
        • Sims JM
        Clinical notes on uterine surgery (with special reference to the sterile condition). Robert Hardwicke, London1866
        • Lubke F
        Westin B Wiqvist N Correlation between cervical penetration and seminal tests, Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress on Fertility and Sterility. Excerpta Medica Foundation1966: 742
        • Hartman CG
        How do sperm get in the uterus?.
        Fertil Steril. 1957; 8: 403-427
        • Jette NT
        • Glass R
        Prognostic value of the postcoital test.
        Fertil Steril. 1972; 23: 29-32
        • Giner J
        • Merino G
        • Luna J
        • Aznar R
        Evaluation of the Sims-Huhner postcoital test in fertile couples.
        Fertil Steril. 1974; 25: 145-148
        • Franken DR
        • Slabber CF
        The postcoital test, a preliminary report.
        S Aft Med J. 1980; 58: 899-900
        • Hull MGR
        • Savage PE
        • Bromham DR
        Prognostic value of the postcoital test: prospective study based on timespecific conception rates.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1982; 89: 299-305
        • Skaf RA
        • Kemmann E
        Postcoital testing in women during menotropin therapy.
        Fertil Steril. 1982; 37: 514-519
        • Collins JA
        • Ying S
        • Wilson EH
        • Wrixon W
        • Casper RE
        The postcoital test as a predictor of pregnancy among 355 infertile couples.
        Fertil Steril. 1984; 41: 703-708
        • McNeil BJ
        • Keeler E
        • Adelstein SJ
        Primer on certain elements of medical decision making.
        N Engl J Med. 1975; 293: 211-215
        • Moghissi K
        The cervix in infertility.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1979; 22: 27-42
        • American Fertility Society
        Investigation of the infertile couple. American Fertility Society, Birmingham, Alabama1986: 25
        • Southam AL
        • Buxton L
        Seventy postcoital tests made during the conception cycle.
        Fertil Steril. 1956; 7: 133-140
        • Gibor Y
        • Garcia Jr, CJ
        • Cohen MR
        • Scommegna A
        The cyclical changes in the physical properties of the cervical mucus and the results of the postcoital test.
        Fertil Steril. 1970; 21: 20-27
        • Santomauro AG
        • Sciarra JJ
        • Varma AO
        A clinical investigation of the role of the semen analysis and postcoital test in the evaluation of male infertility.
        Fertil Steril. 1972; 23: 245-251
        • Moran J
        • Davajan V
        • Nakamura R
        Comparison of the fractional post-coital test with the Sims-Huhner postcoital test.
        Int J Fertil. 1974; 19: 93-96
        • Fredricsson B
        • Bjork G
        Morphpology of postcoital spermatozoa in the cervical secretion and its clinical significance.
        Fertil Steril. 1977; 28: 841-845
        • Cohen J
        • Hewitt J
        • Rowland G
        Application of in-vitro fertilisation in cases of a poor post-coital test.
        Lancet. 1984; 2: 583
        • Matson PL
        • Tuvik AI
        • O'Halloran F
        • Yovich JL
        The value of the postcoital test in predicting the fertilization of human oocytes.
        J Vitro Fertil Embryo Transfer. 1986; 3: 110-113
        • Moloney TW
        • Rogers DE
        Medical technology-a different view of the contentious debate over costs.
        New Engl J Med. 1979; 301: 1413-1419
        • Mosher WD
        Reproductive impairments in the United States, 1965-1982.
        Demography. 1985; 22: 415-430
        • Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University
        How to read clinical journals 11. To learn about a diagnostic test..
        Can Med Assoc J. 1981; 124: 703-710
        • Davajan V
        Postcoital testing: the cervical factor as a cause of infertility.
        in: Mishell Jr, DR Brenner PF Management of common problems in obstetrics and gynecol ogy. Medical Economics Books, Oradell, New Jersey1988: 548
        • Moghissi K
        Postcoital test: physiologic basis, technique and interpretation.
        Fertil Steril. 1976; 27: 117-129
        • Harrison RE
        The diagnostic and therapeutic potential of the postcoital test.
        Fertil Steril. 1981; 36: 71-75
        • World Health Organization
        Laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and semen-cervical mucus interaction. Press Concern, Singapore1980
        • Kovacs GT
        • Newman GB
        • Henson GL
        The postcoital test: what is normal?.
        Br Med J. 1978; 1: 818
        • Tredway DR
        The interpretation and significance of the fractional post coital test.
        Am J Obstet Gynecolol. 1976; 124: 352-355
        • Lunenfeld B
        • Insler V
        The cervical factor.
        in: The diagnosis and treatment of functional infertility. Grosse Verlag, Berlin1978: 102
        • Lemert M
        • Mastroianni Jr, L
        Cervical factors in infertility.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1974; 17: 29-42
        • Mao C
        • Grimes DA
        The sperm penetration assay: can it discriminate between fertile and infertile men?.
        Am J Obstet Gynecolol. 1988; 159: 279-286
        • Polansky FF
        • Lamb EJ
        Do the results of semen analysis predict future fertility? A survival analysis study.
        Fertil Steril. 1988; 49: 1059-1065
        • Cramer DW
        • Walker AM
        • Schiff I
        Statistical methods in evaluating the outcome of infertility therapy.
        Fertil Steril. 1979; 32: 80-86
        • Drake TS
        • Grunert G
        A cyclic pattern of sexual dysfunction in the infertility investigation.
        Fertil Steril. 1979; 32: 542-545
        • Hiatt HH
        Protecting the medical commons: who is responsible?.
        N Engl J Med. 1975; 293: 235-241
        • Cramer DW
        • Goldman MB
        • Schiff I
        • et al.
        The relationship of tubal infertility to barrier method and oral contraceptive use.
        JAMA. 1987; 257: 2446-2450