Method agreement between measuring of boar sperm concentration using Makler chamber and photometer

Acta Veterinaria

Volumn 57, Issue 5-6, 2007, Pages 563-572

  Mrkun, Janko ^a   Kosec, M ^a   Zakošek, Maja ^a   Zrimšek, Petra ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

Method agreement; Porcine; Semen concentration

Indexed keywords

SUIDAE; SUS;

EID: 38549141541     PISSN: 05678315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2298/AVB0706563M     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bland JM, Altman DG, 1986, Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet, 1 (8476), 307-10.
2. Brazil C, Swan S, Tollner C, Treece C, Drobnis E, Redmon JB et al., 2004, Quality control of laboratory methods for semen evaluation in a multicenter research study. J. Androl., 25, 645-56.
3. Christensen P, Stryhn H, Hansen C, 2005, Discrepancies in the determination of sperm concentration using Bürker-Türk, Thoma and Makler counting chambers. Theriogenology, 63, 4, 992-1003.
4. Eustache F, Jouannet P, Auger J, 2001, Evaluation of Flow Cytometric Methods to Measure Human Sperm Concentration. Journal of Andrology, 22, 4, 558-67.
5. Imade GE, Towobola OA, Sagay AS, Otubu JAM, 1993, Discrepancies in sperm count using improved Neubauer, Makler, and Horwells counting chamber. Arch Androl, 31, 17-22.
6. Jones RG, Payne RB, 1997, Analytical methods: control and comparison. In: Jones RG, Payne RB, editors, Clinical Investigation and Statistics in Laboratory Medicine. London: ACB Venture Publications, 27-65.
7. Keel B, Quinn P, Schmidt C, Serafy N Jr, Serafy N Sr, Schalue T, 2000, Results of the American association of Bioanalysts national proficiency testing programme in andrology. Hum Reprod, 15, 680-6.
8. Knuth UA, Neuwinger J, Nieschlag E, 1989, Bias to routine semen analysis by uncontrolled changes in laboratory environment - detection by long-term sampling of monthly means for quality control, Int J Androl, 12, 375-83.
9. Maatson P, 1995, External quality assessment for semen analysis and sperm antibody detection: results of a pilot scheme. Hum Reprod, 10, 620-5.
10. Ma D, Smith FG, 2003, Correlation and regression, In: Smith FG, Smith JR, editors, Key topics in Clinical Research, Oxford: BIOS Scientific Publishers Umited, 147-51.
11. Mahmoud AMA, Depoorter B, Piens N, Comhaire FH, 1997, The performance of 10 different methods for the estimation of sperm concentration. Fertil Steril, 68, 2, 340-5.
12. Neuwinger J, Behre HM, Nieschlag E, 1990, External quality control in the andrology laboratory: an experimental multicenter trial. Fertil Steril, 54, 308-14.
13. Petrie A, Watson P, 1999, Additional Topics. In: Petrie A, Watson P, editors, Statistics for veterinary and animal science, Oxford: Blackwell Science, 168-81.
14. Prathalingam NS, Holt WW, Revell SG, Jones S, Watson PF, 2006, The precision and accuracy of six different methods to determine sperm concentration. J Androl, 27, 2, 257-62.
15. Sokol RZ, Shulman P, Paulson RJ, 2000, Comparison of two methods for the measurement of sperm concentration. Fertil and Steril, 73, 2, 591-4.
16. Vyt P, Maes D, Rijsselaere T, Dejonckheere E, Castryck F, Van Soom A, 2004, Motility Assessment of Porcine Spermatozoa: a Comparison of Methods. Reprod Dom Anim, 30, 447-53.
17. Twormey P, Plasma glucose measurement with the Yellow Springs Glucose 2300 STAT and the Olympus AU640. J Clin Pathol 2004, 57, 752-4.
18. th.
19. Woelders H, 1991, Overview of in vitro methods for evaluation of semen quality. Reprod Domest Anim Suppl, 145-64.