Journal of Andrology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Published-Ahead-of-Print January 10, 2007, DOI:10.2164/jandrol.106.002188

This Article
Right arrow Author Manuscript (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/3/364    most recent
Author Manuscript (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bailey, E.
Right arrow Articles by Tomlinson, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bailey, E.
Right arrow Articles by Tomlinson, M.

Validation of sperm counting methods using Limits of Agreement

Eleanor Bailey , Nick Fenning , Sarah Chamberlain , Lindsey Devlin , James Hopkisson , and Mathew Tomlinson *

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mathew.tomlinson{at}nuh.nhs.uk.

Background: Modern laboratory management requires us to provide full validation or justifcation for introducing newer, simpler, quicker and more accurate diagnostic methods. Methods: This study therefore employs 'limits of agreement' (LoA) to analyse the comparative data and looks to see whether 3 sperm counting methods, Haemacytometer, Leja slide and Makler chamber agree sufficiently in order to be used interchangeably. Both methods were used according to manufacturer instruction as well as using a modified protocol using fixed/diluted sample in order to immobilise often highly motile sperm. Results: The haemocytometer was to be the most reliable/repeatable method of the three. The limits of agreement (LOA) analysis showed that, when sperm were immobilised, the Leja slide compared favourably with the haemacytometer (mean difference of 0, LOA at -2.04 and 1.7). The Makler chamber significantly overestimated concentration, (LOA, -1.42 to 3.18). Conclusions Despite considerable outliers, perhaps occurring due to hyperviscosity, sampling error, mathematical error, diluting error or even a chamber flaw, the analysis showed that variation was as likely to occur when comparing the two chambers as they were when repeating a count using the same chamber. In this context the Leja slide could be viewed as interchangeable with the haemacytometer, if the sample is first immobilised, thus providing justification or validation for its use. In contrast, the Makler method showed very poor agreement and could not be recommended.


Key words: Concentration • Haemocytometer • Leja • Limits of Agreement • Makler






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2007 by The American Society of Andrology.