LABORATORY METHODS FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF ASTHENOZOOSPERMIA

S. Curi Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Male Fertility Laboratory, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University Clinical Hospital "José de San Martin," Buenos Aires, Argentina

J. Ariagno Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Male Fertility Laboratory, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University Clinical Hospital "José de San Martin," Buenos Aires, Argentina

H. Repetto Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Male Fertility Laboratory, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University Clinical Hospital "José de San Martin," Buenos Aires, Argentina

P. Chenlo Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Male Fertility Laboratory, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University Clinical Hospital "José de San Martin," Buenos Aires, Argentina

G. Mendeluk Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Male Fertility Laboratory, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University Clinical Hospital "José de San Martin," Buenos Aires, Argentina

N. Pugliese Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Male Fertility Laboratory, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University Clinical Hospital "José de San Martin," Buenos Aires, Argentina

M. Sardi Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Male Fertility Laboratory, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University Clinical Hospital "José de San Martin," Buenos Aires, Argentina

A. Blanco Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Male Fertility Laboratory, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University Clinical Hospital "José de San Martin," Buenos Aires, Argentina

show all

Abstract

Human sperm samples from 46 men were evaluated for standard semen parameters by two trained technicians, according to WHO criteria. A computer-aided semen analyzer (CASA, HTM-IVOS) was employed. The overall mean coefficient of variation for the 2 participants and the 46 samples studied was 17% for the percentage of progressive motile spermatozoa ( r = 0.77). Twenty-nine (63%) samples were classified as asthenozoospermia by both methods. From the studied samples, 12 (26%) were classified as asthenozoospermia by the subjective method and 2 (4.3%) by CASA ( p =. 01). The two methods do not provide directly comparable data.

Keywords

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

LABORATORY METHODS FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF ASTHENOZOOSPERMIA

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

LABORATORY METHODS FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF ASTHENOZOOSPERMIA

Abstract

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Related research

To cite this article:

Download citation

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Keep up to date

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

Login or register to access this feature