Comparison of commercially available chamber slides for computer-aided analysis of human sperm

References

• Alipour H, Van Der Horst G, Christiansen OB, Dardmeh F, Jørgensen N, Nielsen HI, Hnida C. 2017. Improved sperm kinematics in semen samples collected after 2 h versus 4–7 days of ejaculation abstinence. Hum Reprod. 32(7):1364–1372. doi:10.1093/humrep/dex101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basioura A, Tsousis G, Boscos C, Lymberopoulos A, Tsakmakidis I. 2019. Method agreement between three different chambers for comparative boar semen computer-assisted sperm analysis. Reprod Domest Anim. 54(S4):41–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bompart D, García-Molina A, Valverde A, Caldeira C, Yániz J, Núñez De Murga M, Soler C. 2018. CASA-Mot technology: how results are affected by the frame rate and counting chamber. Reprod Fertil Dev. 30(6):810–819. doi:10.1071/RD17551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho BS, Schuster TG, Zhu X, Chang D, Smith GD, Takayama S. 2003. Passively driven integrated microfluidic system for separation of motile sperm. Anal Chem. 75(7):1671–1675. doi:10.1021/ac020579e.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contri A, Valorz C, Faustini M, Wegher L, Carluccio A. 2010. Effect of semen preparation on casa motility results in cryopreserved bull spermatozoa. Theriogenology. 74(3):424–435. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.02.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dearing CG, Kilburn S, Lindsay KS. 2014. Validation of the sperm class analyser CASA system for sperm counting in a busy diagnostic semen analysis laboratory. Hum Fertil. 17(1):37–44. doi:10.3109/14647273.2013.865843.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Gallego R, Sadeghi S, Blasco E, Soler C, Yániz JL, Silvestre MA. 2017. Effect of chamber characteristics, loading and analysis time on motility and kinetic variables analysed with the CASA-mot system in goat sperm. Anim Reprod Sci. 177:97–104. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2016.12.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas-Hamilton DH, Smith NG, Kuster CE, Vermeiden JPW, Althouse GC. 2005. Capillary-loaded particle fluid dynamics: effect on estimation of sperm concentration. J Androl. 26(1):115–122.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gączarzewicz D. 2015. Influence of chamber type integrated with computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA) system on the results of boar semen evaluation. Pol J Vet Sci. 18(4):817–824. doi:10.1515/pjvs-2015-0106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallego V, Carneiro PCF, Mazzeo I, Vílchez MC, Peñaranda DS, Soler C, Pérez L, Asturiano JF. 2013. Standardization of European eel (Anguilla anguilla) sperm motility evaluation by CASA software. Theriogenology. 79(7):1034–1040. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2013.01.019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gloria A, Carluccio A, Contri A, Wegher L, Valorz C, Robbe D. 2013. The effect of the chamber on kinetic results in cryopreserved bull spermatozoa. Andrology. 1(6):879–885. doi:10.1111/j.2047-2927.2013.00121.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirano Y, Shibahara H, Obara H, Suzuki T, Takamizawa S, Yamaguchi C, Tsunoda H, Sato I. 2001. Relationships between sperm motility characteristics assessed by the computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) and fertilization rates in vitro. J Assist Reprod Genet. 18(4):213–218. doi:10.1023/A:1009420432234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoogewijs MK, De Vliegher SP, Govaere JL, De Schauwer C, de Kruif A, Van Soom A. 2012. Influence of counting chamber type on CASA outcomes of equine semen analysis. Equine Vet J. 44(5):542–549. doi:10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00523.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JE, Boone WR, Blackhurst DW. 1996. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part I. Comparison of counting chambers. Fertil Steril. 65(1):150–155. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)58043-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kathiravan P, Kalatharan J, Karthikeya G, Rengarajan K, Kadirvel G. 2011. Objective Sperm Motion Analysis to Assess Dairy Bull Fertility Using Computer-Aided System - A Review. Reprod Domest Anim. 46(1):165–172. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0531.2010.01603.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koo TK, Li MY. 2016. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 15(2):155–163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuster C. 2005. Sperm concentration determination between hemacytometric and CASA systems: why they can be different. Theriogenology. 64(3):614–617. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2005.05.047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lammers J, Splingart C, Barrière P, Jean M, Fréour T. 2014. Double-blind prospective study comparing two automated sperm analyzers versus manual semen assessment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 31(1):35–43. doi:10.1007/s10815-013-0139-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lannou D, Le Griveau JF, Le Pichon JP, Quero JC. 1992. Effects of chamber depth on the motion pattern of human spermatozoa in semen or in capacitating medium. Hum Reprod. 7(10):1417–1421. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137585.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenz RW, Kjelland ME, Vonderhaar K, Swannack TM, Moreno JF. 2011. A comparison of bovine seminal quality assessments using different viewing chambers with a computer-assisted semen analyzer. J Anim Sci. 89(2):383–388. doi:10.2527/jas.2010-3056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makler A. 1978. A new chamber for rapid sperm count and motility estimation. Fertil Steril. 30(3):313–318. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)43518-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maree L, van der Horst G. 2013. Quantification and identification of sperm subpopulations using computer-aided sperm analysis and species-specific cut-off values for swimming speed. Biotech Histochem. 88(3–4):181–193. doi:10.3109/10520295.2012.757366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massányi P, Chrenek P, Lukác N, Makarevich AV, Ostro A, Zivcak J, Bulla J. 2008. Comparison of different evaluation chambers for analysis of rabbit spermatozoa motility parameters using casa system. Slovak J Anim Sci. 41(2):60–66.
   Google Scholar
• McCormack MC, McCallum S, Behr B. 2006. A novel microfluidic device for male subfertility screening. J Urol. 175(6):2223–2227. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00276-X.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortimer D. 1994. Practical Laboratory Andrology. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mortimer D, Aitken RJ, Mortimer ST, Pacey AA. 1995. Workshop report: clinical casa—the quest for consensus. Reprod Fertil Dev. 7(4):951–959. doi:10.1071/RD9950951.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortimer ST, van der Horst G, Mortimer D. 2015. The future of computer-aided sperm analysis. Asian J Androl. 17(4):545–553. doi:10.4103/1008-682X.154312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagy Á, Polichronopoulos T, Gáspárdy A, Solti L, Cseh S. 2015. Correlation between bull fertility and sperm cell velocity parameters generated by computer-assisted semen analysis. Acta Vet Hung. 63(3):370–381. doi:10.1556/004.2015.035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosrati R, Gong MM, San Gabriel MC, Pedraza CE, Zini A, Sinton D. 2016. Paper-based quantification of male fertility potential. Clin Chem. 62(3):458–465. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2015.250282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosrati R, Graham PJ, Zhang B, Riordon J, Lagunov A, Hannam TG, Escobedo C, Jarvi K, Sinton D. 2017. Microfluidics for sperm analysis and selection. Nat Rev Urol. 14:707–730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paston MJ, Sarkar S, Oates RP, Badawy SZA. 1994. Computer-aided semen analysis variables as predictors of Male fertility potential. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 33(2):93–99.
   Google Scholar
• Peng N, Zou X, Li L. 2015. Comparison of different counting chambers using a computer-assisted semen analyzer. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 61(5):307–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivera-Montes AM, Rivera-Gallegos A, Rodríguez-Villasana E, Juárez-Bengoa A, Díaz-Pérez M, de Los A, Hernández-Valencia M. 2013. Estimate of the variability in the evaluation of semen analysis. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 81(11):639–644.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Soler C, Picazo-Bueno J, Micó V, Valverde A, Bompart D, Blasco FJ, Álvarez JG, García-Molina A. 2018. Effect of counting chamber depth on the accuracy of lensless microscopy for the assessment of boar sperm motility. Reprod Fertil Dev. 30(6):924–934. doi:10.1071/RD17467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talarczyk-Desole J, Berger A, Taszarek-Hauke G, Hauke J, Pawelczyk L, Jedrzejczak P. 2017. Manual vs. computer-assisted sperm analysis: can CASA replace manual assessment of human semen in clinical practice? Ginekol Pol. 88(2):56–60. doi:10.5603/GP.a2017.0012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomlinson MJ, Naeem A. 2018. CASA in the medical laboratory: CASA in diagnostic andrology and assisted conception. Reprod Fertil Dev. 30(6):850. doi:10.1071/RD17520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasilewski TLM, Wasilewska J, Mroczko B. 2020. Biochemistry of infertility. 508(April):185–190.
   Google Scholar
• Watson PF, Petrie A. 2010. Method agreement analysis: A review of correct methodology. Theriogenology. 73(9):1167–1179. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.01.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 2010. WHO laboratory manual for the Examination and processing of human semen. Geneva: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Yániz J, Palacín I, Santolaria P. 2019. Effect of chamber characteristics, incubation, and diluent on motility of honey bee (Apis mellifera) drone sperm. Apidologie. 50(4):472–481. doi:10.1007/s13592-019-00659-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youn JS, Cha SH, Park CW, Yang KM, Kim JY, Koong MK, Kang IS, Song IO, Han SC. 2011. Predictive value of sperm motility characteristics assessed by computer-assisted sperm analysis in intrauterine insemination with superovulation in couples with unexplained infertility. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 38(1):47–52. doi:10.5653/cerm.2011.38.1.47.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar