- Fertilite
- Published:
Etude Comparative de 3 Methodes D’analyse du Sperme
Comparative study between three methods of semen analysis
Andrologie volume 1, pages 62–65 (1991)
Abstract
A comparative study between three methods of semen analysis reveals that the full automated CMA system gives higher values for sperm concentration than the mean of the three methods, probably due to misclassification of debris as sperm cells, whereas the semi-automatic Autosperm method and the conventional manual method identify spermatozoa in the microscopic field. The Autosperm method provides more reproducible results for concentration and velocity parameters and its values are better correlated with the manual method as recommended by the World Health Organization.
Resume
L’étude comparative de trois méthodes d’analyse de sperme indique que la méthode automatisée CMA donne des concentrations supérieures à la moyenne, probablement du fait de la prise en compte par le système d’analyse d’images des débris cellulaires, alors que la méthode semi-automatique et la méthode manuelle permettent d’individualiser les cellules sur le champ du microscope. Outre le fait que l’Autosperm donne des résultats plus reproductibles quelque soit le paramètre considéré, ses valeurs sont mieux corrélées avec ceux de la méthode manuelle qu’avec ceux de la méthode CMA.
References
-Albertsea PC, Chang TSK, Vindivich D, Robinson JC, Smyth JW. A critical method of evaluating tests for male infertility. J. Urol., 1983, 130: 467–475.
-Aitken RJ, Best FM, Richardson DW, Djahanbakch O, Lees MM. The correlates of fertilizing capacity in normal fertile men. Fertil. Steril., 1982, 38: 68–76.
-Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1986, 1: 307–310.
-Comhaire FH, Vermeulen L, Schoonjans F, Reassessment of the accuracy of traditional sperm characteristics and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in estimating the fertilizing potential of human semen in vivo. Int. J. Androl., 1987, 10: 653–662.
-Hinting A, Schoojans F, Comhaire F. Validation of a single-step procedure for the objective assessment of sperm motility characteristics. Int. J. Androl., 1988, 11: 277–287.
-Hinting A, Comhaire F.H., Schoojans F. Capacity of objectively assessed sperm motility characteritics in differentiating between semen of fertile and subfertile men Fertil. Steril.: 1988, 50: 635–639.
-Holt W.V., Moore HDM, Hillier SG. Computer assisted measurement of sperm swimming speed in human semen: correlation of results with in vitro fertilization assays. Fertil. Steril., 1985, 44: 112–119.
-Knuth UA, Yeung C-H, Nieschlag E. Computerized semen analysis: objective measurement of semen characteristics is biased by subjective parameter setting. Fertil. Steril., 1987, 48: 118–124.
-Macomber D, Sanders MB. The spermatozoa count; its value in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of sterility. New Engl. J. Med. Zoo, 1929, 200: 981–984.
-Peng H.Q., Collins J.A., Wilson EH, Wrixon W. Receiver-operating characteristics curves for semen analysis variables: methods for evaluating diagnostics tests of male gamete function. Gamete Res., 1987, 17: 229–236.
-Schneider U, Gehring W.G., Bürkle K. Computer assisted semen analysis with the SM Motionanalyzer: a new approach Présentation au Congrès de la Fertility Society of Australia, Perth, Septembre 1990
-World Health Organization. Towards more objectivity in diagnosis and management of male infertility. Int. J. Androl., 1987, Suppl. 7.
-World Health Organization. Laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and semencervical mucus interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kamtchouing, P., Schoonjans, F., Vermeulen, L. et al. Etude Comparative de 3 Methodes D’analyse du Sperme. Androl. 1, 62–65 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03034171
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03034171