Comparison of three sperm-counting methods for the determination of sperm concentration in human semen and sperm suspensions

Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 232-236

  Lu, Jin Chun ^a,b   Chen, Fang ^a,c   Xu, Hui Ru ^a,d   Huang, Yu Feng ^a   Lu, Nian Qing ^e  

^a NANJING UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b Nanjing Hospital   (China)

^c NANJING MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^d NANJING NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^e Jiangsu Family Planning Institute   (China)

Author keywords

Cell VU chamber; Hemacytometer; Makler chamber; Sperm concentration; Standardization

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149462502     PISSN: 00075027     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/1CWDWU8EP86HBJ0R     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Keel BA. Quality control, quality assurance, and proficiency testing in the andrology laboratory. Arch Androl. 2002;48:417-431.
2. Keel BA. How reliable are results from the semen analysis? Fertil Steril. 2004;82:41-44.
3. Auger J, Eustache F, Ducot B, et al. Intra- and inter-individual variability in human sperm concentration, motility and vitality assessment during a workshop involving ten laboratories. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2360-2368.
4. Muller CH. The andrology laboratory in an assisted reproductive technologies program. Quality assurance and laboratory methodology. J Androl. 1992;13: 349-360.
5. Dunphy BC, Kay R, Barratt CLR, et al. Quality control during the conventional analysis of semen, an essential exercise. J Androl. 1989;10: 378-385.
6. Franken DR. African experience with sperm morphology training courses. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7:114-119.
7. Cooper TG, Bjorndahl L, Vreeburg J, et al. Semen analysis and external quality control schemes for semen analysis need global standardization. Int J Androl. 2002;25:306-311.
8. Becker S, Berhane K. A meta-analysis of 61 sperm count studies revisited. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:1103-1108.
9. Fisch H, Goluboff ET. Geographic variations in sperm counts: A potential cause of bias in studies of semen quality. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:1044-1046.
10. Fisch H, Goluboff ET, Olson JH, et al. Semen analyses in 1283 men from the United States over a 25-year period: No decline in quality. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:1009-1014.
11. Fisch H, Ikeguchi EF, Goluboff ET. Worldwide variations in sperm counts. Urology. 1996;48:909-911.
12. Levine RJ, Brown MH, Bordson BL, et al. Deterioration of semen quality during summer in New Orleans. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:900-907.
13. Reinberg A, Smith KO, Smolensky MH, et al. Annual variation in semen characteristics and plasma hormone levels in men undergoing vasectomy. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:309-315.
14. Davis RO, Boyers SP. The role of digital image analysis in reproductive biology and medicine. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116:351-363.
15. Boone WR, Jones JM, Shapiro SS. Using videotaped specimens to test quality control in a computer-assisted semen analysis system. Fertil Steril. 2000;73: 636-640.
16. Brazil C, Swan SH, Drobnis EZ, et al. Standardized methods for semen evaluation in a multicenter research study. J Androl. 2004;25:635-644.
17. Brazil C, Swan SH, Tollner CR, et al. Quality control of laboratory methods for semen evaluation in a multicenter research study. J Androl. 2004;25: 645-656.
18. Neuwinger J, Behre HM, Nieschlag E. External quality control in the andrology laboratory: An experimental multicenter trial. Fertil Steril. 1990; 54:308-314.
19. Seaman EK, Goluboff E, BarChama N, et al. Accuracy of semen counting chambers as determined by the use of latex beads. Fertil Steril. 1996;66: 662-665.
20. Lu JC, Chen F, Xu HR, et al. Preliminary investigations on the standardization and quality control for the determination of acid phosphatase activity in seminal plasma. Clin Chim Acta. 2007;375:76-81.
21. Lu JC, Lu NQ, Huang YF, et al. Quality evaluation of three different sperm counting chambers. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2004;10:755-757, 760.
22. Hu YA, Lu JC, Lu NQ, et al. Comparison of four methods for sperm counting. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2006,12:222-224, 227.
23. World Health Organization. Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999:14-17.
24. Huang YF, Li PS. Urgent need for the standardization of semen analysis among clinical andrology laboratories. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2005;11:83-84.
25. Mahmoud AM, Depoorter B, Piens N, et al. The performance of 10 different methods for the estimation of sperm concentration. Fertil Steril. 1997;68: 340-345.
26. Johnson JE, Boone WR, Blackhurst DW. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part I. Comparison of counting chambers. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:150-155.
27. 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. 1996;65:156-159.
28. Johnson JE, Boone WR, Blackhurst DW. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part III. Comparison of old versus new design Microcell chambers. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:446-447.
29. Björndahl L, Barratt CLR. Semen analysis: Setting standards for the measurement of sperm numbers. J Androl. 2005;26:11.
30. Douglas-Hamilton DH, Smith NG, Kuster CE, et al. Particle distribution in low-volume capillary-loaded chambers. J Androl. 2005; 26:107-114.
31. Douglas-Hamilton DH, Smith NG, Kuster CE, et al. Capillary-loaded particle fluid dynamics: Effect on estimation of sperm concentration. J Androl. 2005;26:115-122.
32. Sokol RZ, Shulman P, Paulson RJ. Comparison of two methods for the measurement of sperm concentration. Fertil Steril. 2000; 73:591-594.