ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Effects of six kinds of sperm staining methods on human sperm size and evaluation of their staining effects.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Evaluation of Staining Techniques in Thawed Cryopreserved Dog Semen.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Immediate spermatogenesis assessment after testicular tissue retrieval for azoospermic males using touch print smear.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Comparative Assessment of Sperm Morphology in Liquid-Preserved Boar Semen Using Cytological Stains.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Investigations on semen analysis capabilities and quality control measures in laboratories with different management modes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Silymarin as a promising antioxidant for sperm cryopreservation: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Review
- Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy on Gold Nanoparticle for Sperm Quality Discrimination.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Morphological Parameters of 29994 sperm in a fertile male population-based on Papanicolaou staining and SSA-II Plus.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Anthocyanins fromPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Performance evaluation of sperm concentration, motility, and morphological analysis for GSA-810 series of sperm quality analysis system.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2023Article
- Effects of six kinds of sperm staining methods on human sperm size and evaluation of their staining effects.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge- and small-headed sperm are common morphological abnormalities. If different sperm staining methods affect sperm size, they will make a difference in the accuracy of sperm morphological analysis results. In this case, the normal reference values of sperm head parameters for different staining methods should be established.
methodsSix sperm staining methods, including Papanicolaou, Diff-Quik, Shorr, Hematoxylin-eosin (HE), Wright, and Wright-Giemsa staining, were used to stain the sperm smears of 25 semen samples, respectively. Sperm head parameter's length (L), width (W), area (A), perimeter, acrosomal area (Ac), and the derived values L/W and Ac/A of 2500 sperm (100 for each specimen) per staining method were measured by a computer-aided sperm morphological analysis system.
resultsThe highest sperm head length and width were observed with the Wright-Giemsa and Wright staining, followed by the Diff-Quik. The lowest sperm head length and width were observed with the Papanicolaou staining, and the sperm head length and width of HE and Shorr staining were between those of Papanicolaou and Diff-Quik staining. There was the same trend in changes in sperm head area and perimeter. Diff-Quik and Shorr staining could clearly distinguish acrosome and nucleus, followed by HE staining, whereas the boundary between acrosome and nucleus was not evident in Papanicolaou, Wright, and Wright-Giemsa staining.
conclusionDifferent staining methods influence sperm size, and the normal reference values of sperm head parameters of each staining method should be established. Diff-Quik and Shorr staining may be suitable methods for routine sperm morphological analysis.
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.