Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAktan, Gulsan
dc.contributor.authorOrtac, Mazhar
dc.contributor.authorSalabas, Emre
dc.contributor.authorKucukdurmaz, Faruk
dc.contributor.authorKadioglu, Ates
dc.contributor.authorDincer, Murat
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-06T20:27:34Z
dc.date.available2021-03-06T20:27:34Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationDincer M., Kucukdurmaz F., Salabas E., Ortac M., Aktan G., Kadioglu A., "Comparison of Two Different Methods Used for Semen Evaluation: Analysis of Semen Samples from 1,055 Men", UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, cilt.98, ss.215-221, 2017
dc.identifier.issn0042-1138
dc.identifier.otherav_fa4bc364-a1db-4cd0-965b-764a2d8248e4
dc.identifier.othervv_1032021
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/163890
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1159/000446445
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate whether there is a difference between gravimetrically and volumetrically measured semen samples and to assess the impact of semen volume, density, and sperm count on the discrepancy between gravimetric and volumetric methods. This study was designed in an andrology laboratory setting and performed on semen samples of 1,055 men receiving infertility treatment. Semen volume was calculated by gravimetric and volumetric methods. The total sperm count, semen density and sperm viability were also examined according to recent version of World Health Organization manual. The median values for gravimetric and volumetric measurements were 3.44 g and 2.96 ml respectively. The numeric difference in semen volume between 2 methods was 0.48. The mean density of samples was 1.01 +/- 0.46 g/ml (range 0.90-2.0 g/ml). The numeric difference between 2 methods gets higher as semen volume increases (p < 0.001). Gravimetric and volumetric semen volume measurements were strongly correlated for all samples and for each subgroup of semen volume, semen density and sperm count, with minimum correlation coefficient of 0.895 (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the gravimetric measurement provides higher results than volumetric one and numeric differences between 2 methods increase as semen volume increases. However, further studies are needed to offer the use of gravimetrical method, which was thought to minimize laboratory errors, particularly for a high amount of semen samples. (C) 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectSağlık Bilimleri
dc.subjectNefroloji
dc.subjectDahili Tıp Bilimleri
dc.subjectİç Hastalıkları
dc.subjectTıp
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp (MED)
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp
dc.subjectÜROLOJİ VE NEFROLOJİ
dc.titleComparison of Two Different Methods Used for Semen Evaluation: Analysis of Semen Samples from 1,055 Men
dc.typeMakale
dc.relation.journalUROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS
dc.contributor.departmentİstanbul Üniversitesi , ,
dc.identifier.volume98
dc.identifier.issue2
dc.identifier.startpage215
dc.identifier.endpage221
dc.contributor.firstauthorID84598


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record