FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022981615> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022981615 endingPage "638" @default.
• W2022981615 startingPage "632" @default.
• W2022981615 abstract "ObjectiveTo compare the effects of density-gradient centrifugation and swim-up on sperm apoptosis by using a multiparameter flow cytometric method.DesignAutocontrolled split-sample study.SettingTertiary infertility center.Patient(s)Sixty-two male partners of couples undergoing infertility investigations.Intervention(s)Each sample was analyzed both before and after semen preparation by optical microscopy and by flow cytometry.Main Outcome Measure(s)Percentage of viable, apoptotic, and necrotic sperm and recovery rate of total motile, progressive motile, and viable sperm before and after the two sperm preparation methods.Result(s)Compared with the original semen, the mean percentages of apoptotic and necrotic sperm were significantly lower after both sperm preparation methods. The mean percentage of viable sperm was significantly higher after swim-up compared with gradient centrifugation. The recovery rates of total motile, progressive motile, and viable sperm were significantly higher using gradient centrifugation compared with swim-up. The viable sperm percentage and the progressive sperm motility were significant predictors for negative difference between the two methods in terms of viable sperm percentage after preparation.Conclusion(s)Both sperm preparation methods allow obtaining a sperm population with a low percentage of apoptotic sperm. Therefore, the risk of using apoptotic sperm for clinical treatment seems to be rather low. The choice of method will depend on whether IVF/ICSI or intrauterine insemination is to be performed. To compare the effects of density-gradient centrifugation and swim-up on sperm apoptosis by using a multiparameter flow cytometric method. Autocontrolled split-sample study. Tertiary infertility center. Sixty-two male partners of couples undergoing infertility investigations. Each sample was analyzed both before and after semen preparation by optical microscopy and by flow cytometry. Percentage of viable, apoptotic, and necrotic sperm and recovery rate of total motile, progressive motile, and viable sperm before and after the two sperm preparation methods. Compared with the original semen, the mean percentages of apoptotic and necrotic sperm were significantly lower after both sperm preparation methods. The mean percentage of viable sperm was significantly higher after swim-up compared with gradient centrifugation. The recovery rates of total motile, progressive motile, and viable sperm were significantly higher using gradient centrifugation compared with swim-up. The viable sperm percentage and the progressive sperm motility were significant predictors for negative difference between the two methods in terms of viable sperm percentage after preparation. Both sperm preparation methods allow obtaining a sperm population with a low percentage of apoptotic sperm. Therefore, the risk of using apoptotic sperm for clinical treatment seems to be rather low. The choice of method will depend on whether IVF/ICSI or intrauterine insemination is to be performed." @default.
• W2022981615 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022981615 creator A5028586228 @default.
• W2022981615 creator A5029312519 @default.
• W2022981615 creator A5056963397 @default.
• W2022981615 creator A5058299263 @default.
• W2022981615 creator A5059150956 @default.
• W2022981615 creator A5078180748 @default.
• W2022981615 date "2009-02-01" @default.
• W2022981615 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2022981615 title "Semen preparation methods and sperm apoptosis: swim-up versus gradient-density centrifugation technique" @default.
• W2022981615 cites W1557010337 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W1912079946 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W1975096381 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W1975905048 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W1983874748 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W1986612378 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2003885225 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2023957744 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2031534477 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2043786747 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2044045966 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2058454440 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2061050258 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2064693962 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2090178053 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2097355984 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2101773718 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2102803799 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2106429976 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2109883299 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2116280149 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2128376081 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2128478608 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2128718884 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2131850230 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2134920717 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2137923407 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2146893907 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2156130138 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2164738849 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2168439614 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W2169795110 @default.
• W2022981615 cites W4235528747 @default.
• W2022981615 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.11.068" @default.
• W2022981615 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18206147" @default.
• W2022981615 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2022981615 type Work @default.
• W2022981615 sameAs 2022981615 @default.
• W2022981615 citedByCount "104" @default.
• W2022981615 countsByYear W20229816152012 @default.
• W2022981615 countsByYear W20229816152013 @default.
• W2022981615 countsByYear W20229816152014 @default.
• W2022981615 countsByYear W20229816152015 @default.
• W2022981615 countsByYear W20229816152016 @default.
• W2022981615 countsByYear W20229816152017 @default.
• W2022981615 countsByYear W20229816152018 @default.
• W2022981615 countsByYear W20229816152019 @default.
• W2022981615 countsByYear W20229816152020 @default.
• W2022981615 countsByYear W20229816152021 @default.
• W2022981615 countsByYear W20229816152022 @default.
• W2022981615 countsByYear W20229816152023 @default.
• W2022981615 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022981615 hasAuthorship W2022981615A5028586228 @default.
• W2022981615 hasAuthorship W2022981615A5029312519 @default.
• W2022981615 hasAuthorship W2022981615A5056963397 @default.
• W2022981615 hasAuthorship W2022981615A5058299263 @default.
• W2022981615 hasAuthorship W2022981615A5059150956 @default.
• W2022981615 hasAuthorship W2022981615A5078180748 @default.
• W2022981615 hasBestOaLocation W20229816151 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C127315564 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C132946820 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C153911025 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C16685009 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C2777005246 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C2777338322 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C2777589648 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C2777632594 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C2777688143 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C2778093475 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C2778610407 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C2779234561 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C2781087480 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C7623868 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConceptScore W2022981615C127315564 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConceptScore W2022981615C132946820 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConceptScore W2022981615C153911025 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConceptScore W2022981615C16685009 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConceptScore W2022981615C2777005246 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConceptScore W2022981615C2777338322 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConceptScore W2022981615C2777589648 @default.
• W2022981615 hasConceptScore W2022981615C2777632594 @default.

• next