Accuracy of computer-assisted semen analysis in prefreeze and post-thaw specimens with high and low sperm counts and motility

Urology

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 306-312

  Sidhu, Rajinder S ^a   Sharma, Rakesh K ^a   Lee, Jar Chi ^a   Agarwal, Ashok ^a  

^a Department of Cardiology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; AUTOANALYZER; CANCER; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRYOPRESERVATION; FREEZING; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MALE INFERTILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMEN ANALYSIS; SPERMATOZOON COUNT; SPERMATOZOON MOTILITY; THAWING;

CRYOPRESERVATION; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPERM COUNT; SPERM MOTILITY;

EID: 0032005474     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00628-6     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Mortimer D, Fraser L. Consensus workshop on advanced diagnostic andrology techniques. Hum Reprod. 11:1996;1463-1479.
2. Sharma RK, Agarwal A. Artificial stimulation of cryopreserved human spermatozoa by sodium nitropruside, 2-chloroadenosine and 2-deoxyadenosine. Eur Urol. 32:1997;344-352.
3. Johnson JE, Boone WR, Blackhurst DW. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part 1. Comparison of counting chambers. Fertil Steril. 65:1996;150-155.
4. Johnson JE, Boone WR, Sander SS. Determination of the precision of an automated semen analyzer. Lab Med. 21:1990;33-38.
5. Knuth UA, Yeung C-H, Nieschlag E. Computerized semen analysis: objective measurement of semen characteristics is biased by subjective parameter setting. Fertil Steril. 48:1987;118-124.
6. Knuth UA, Nieschlag E. Comparison of computerized semen analysis with the conventional procedure in 322 patients. Fertil Steril. 49:1988;881-885.
7. 3rd ed. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus interaction. 1992;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
8. Mortimer D, Shu MA, Tan R. Standardization and quality control of sperm motility counts in semen analysis. Hum Reprod. 1:1986;299-303.
9. Parinaud J, Richoilley G, Vieitez G, Labal B, Moutaffian H. Relevance of acrosome function in the evaluation of semen in vitro fertilizing ability. Fertil Steril. 63:1995;598-603.
10. Mortimer D, Goel N, Shu MA. Evaluation of the CellSoft automated semen analysis system in a routine laboratory setting. Fertil Steril. 50:1988;960-968.
11. Agarwal A, Shekarriz M, Sidhu RS, Thomas AJ Jr. Value of clinical diagnosis in predicting the quality of cryopreserved sperm from cancer patients. J Urol. 155:1996;934-938.
12. Comhaire FH, Huysse S, Hinting A, Vermeulen L, Schoonjans F. Objective semen analysis: has the target been reached? Hum Reprod. 7:1992;237-241.
13. Davis RO, Rothman SA, Overstreet JW. Accuracy and precision of computer-aided sperm analysis in multicenter studies. Fertil Steril. 57:1992;648-653.
14. Clements S, Cooke ID, Barrett CLR. Implementing comprehensive quality control in the andrology laboratory. Hum Reprod. 10:1995;2096-2106.
15. Farrell PB, Foote RH, Zinaman MJ. Motility and other characteristics of human sperm can be measured by computer-assisted sperm analysis of samples stained with Hoechst 33342. Fertil Steril. 66:1996;446-453.
16. Ginsburg KA, Armant DR. The influence of chamber characteristics on the reliability of sperm concentration and movement measurements obtained by manual and video-micrographic analysis. Fertil Steril. 53:1990;882-887.
17. Johnson JE, Boone WR, Blackhurst DW. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part II. Determination of the working range of a computer-automated semen analyzer. Fertil Steril. 65:1996;156-159.
18. Mathur S, Carlton M, Ziegler J, Rust PF. A computerized sperm motion analysis. Fertil Steril. 46:1988;484-488.
19. Vantman D, Koukoulis G, Dennison L, Zinaman M, Sherins RJ. Computer-assisted semen analysis: evaluation of method and assessment of the influence of sperm concentration on linear velocity determination. Fertil Steril. 49:1988;510-515.
20. Davis RO, Katz DF. Standardization and comparability of CASA instruments. J Androl. 13:1992;81-86.
21. Mortimer D, Serra C, Mortimer ST, Jouannet P. Influence of image sampling frequency on the perceived movement characteristics of progressively motile human spermatozoa. Gamete Res. 20:1988;313-327.