ArticleInternational journal of fertility & sterility
Accuracy Evaluation of The Depth of Six Kinds of Sperm Counting Chambers for both Manual and Computer-Aided Semen Analyses.
Article in International journal of fertility & sterility. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Accuracy comparison study of new smartphone-based semen analyzer versus laboratory sperm quality analyzer.Investigative and clinical urology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the depth of the counting chamber is an important factor influencing sperm counting, no research has yet been reported on the measurement and comparison of the depth of the chamber. We measured the exact depths of six kinds of sperm counting chambers and evaluated their accuracy. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this prospective study, the depths of six kinds of sperm counting chambers for both manual and computer-aided semen analyses, including Makler (n=24), Macro (n=32), Geoffrey (n=34), GoldCyto (n=20), Leja (n=20) and Cell-VU (n=20), were measured with the Filmetrics F20 Spectral Reflectance Thin-Film Measurement System, then the mean depth, the range and the coefficient of variation (CV) of each chamber, and the mean depth, relative deviation and acceptability of each kind of chamber were calculated by the closeness to the nominal value. Among the 24 Makler chambers, 5 were new and 19 were used, and the other five kinds were all new chambers.
resultsThe depths (mean ± SD, μm) of Makler (new), Macro and Geoffrey chambers were 11.07 ± 0.41, 10.19 ± 0.48 and 10.00 ± 0.28, respectively, while those of GoldCyto, Leja and Cell-VU chambers were 23.76 ± 2.15, 20.49 ± 0.22 and 24.22 ± 2.58, respectively. The acceptability of Geoffrey chambers was the highest (94.12%), followed by Macro (65.63%), Leja (35%) and Makler (20%), while that of the other two kinds and the used Makler chamber was zero.
conclusionThere existed some difference between the actual depth and the corresponding nominal value for sperm counting chambers, and the overall acceptability was very low. Moreover, the abrasion caused by the long use, as of Makler chamber, for example, may result in unacceptability of the chamber. In order to ensure the accuracy and repeatability of sperm concentration results, the depth of the sperm counting chamber must be checked regularly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.