Literature DB >> 8373281

Discrepancies in sperm count using improved Neubauer, Makler, and Horwells counting chambers.

G E Imade1, O A Towobola, A S Sagay, J A Otubu.   

Abstract

Semen analysis still remains an important diagnostic procedure in male infertility evaluation. For the purpose of standardization and uniformity in the interpretation of sperm count results, the accuracy of three different counting chambers (improved Neubauer (IMN), Makler, and Horwells) were evaluated. Semen samples produced by 50 men were analyzed with the three different counting chambers using World Health Organization guidelines. The overall precision values of sperm count were: IMN 9.7%, Makler 5.9%, and Horwells 7.1%. The mean sperm counts (+/- SEM) were 78.6 (+/- 10.1), 119.1 (+/- 14.1), and 211.5 (+/- 27.5) million spermatozoa/ml respectively. Statistically significant differences were revealed when the sperm count results obtained with the different counting chambers were compared, i.e., IMN vs Makler (P < 0.05), IMN vs Horwells (P < 0.001), and Makler vs Horwells (P < 0.01). The sperm count results obtained from the 50 samples were classified into four subgroups (A = 1-20, B = 21-50, C = 51-100, and D = > 100 million spermatozoa/ml) using IMN as a reference chamber. Errors reflected as progressively poor SEM of sperm count (A = 1.1, 3.2, 4.1; B = 3.0, 6.1, 12.4; C = 3.4, 17.0, 23.9; and D = 14.1, 21.3, 46.3) were observed for IMN, Makler, and Horwells counting chamber respectively in each group. This study revealed that inherent errors abound when different counting chambers are used for sperm count. While IMN gave the lowest sperm count, Horwells recorded the highest. Makler counting chamber gave midway values and conforms with recommendations in the literature about its accuracy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8373281     DOI: 10.3109/01485019308988375

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Androl        ISSN: 0148-5016


  3 in total

Review 1.  Are sperm counts declining? Or did we just change our spectacles?

Authors:  Allan A Pacey
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 3.285

2.  Evaluating the accuracy of different sperm counting chambers by performing strict counts of photographed beads.

Authors:  E Shiran; J Stoller; Z Blumenfeld; P D Feigin; A Makler
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Preserving and using germplasm and dissociated embryonic cells for conserving Caribbean and Pacific coral.

Authors:  Mary Hagedorn; Virginia Carter; Kelly Martorana; Malia K Paresa; Jason Acker; Iliana B Baums; Eric Borneman; Michael Brittsan; Michael Byers; Michael Henley; Michael Laterveer; Jo-Ann Leong; Megan McCarthy; Stuart Meyers; Brian D Nelson; Dirk Petersen; Terrence Tiersch; Rafael Cuevas Uribe; Erik Woods; David Wildt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.