These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
2. Comparison of different counting chambers using a computer-assisted semen analyzer. Peng N, Zou X, Li L. Syst Biol Reprod Med; 2015; 61(5):307-13. PubMed ID: 26214093 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of commercially available chamber slides for computer-aided analysis of human sperm. Dardmeh F, Heidari M, Alipour H. Syst Biol Reprod Med; 2021 Apr; 67(2):168-175. PubMed ID: 33375858 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Influence of chamber type integrated with computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA) system on the results of boar semen evaluation. Gączarzewicz D. Pol J Vet Sci; 2015 Feb; 18(4):817-24. PubMed ID: 26812825 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part II. Determination of the working range of a computer-automated semen analyzer. Johnson JE, Boone WR, Blackhurst DW. Fertil Steril; 1996 Jan; 65(1):156-9. PubMed ID: 8557133 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Optimal frame rate when there were stallion sperm motility evaluations and determinations for kinematic variables using CASA-Mot analysis in different counting chambers. Gacem S, Bompart D, Valverde A, Catalán J, Miró J, Soler C. Anim Reprod Sci; 2020 Dec; 223():106643. PubMed ID: 33157363 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Method agreement between three different chambers for comparative boar semen computer-assisted sperm analysis. Basioura A, Tsousis G, Boscos C, Lymberopoulos A, Tsakmakidis I. Reprod Domest Anim; 2019 Oct; 54 Suppl 4():41-45. PubMed ID: 31232479 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. [Quality evaluation of 3 sperm counting chambers by computer-assisted sperm analysis system]. Cai J, Zeng Y, Song C, Mo ML, Yin B, Lin Q, Huang J. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2009 Mar; 15(3):241-3. PubMed ID: 19452697 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. One-step disposable chambers for sperm concentration and motility assessment: how do they compare with the World Health Organization's recommended methods? Tomlinson M, Turner J, Powell G, Sakkas D. Hum Reprod; 2001 Jan; 16(1):121-124. PubMed ID: 11139549 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. [Comparison of four methods for sperm counting]. Hu YA, Lu JC, Lu NQ, Shao Y, Huang YF. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2006 Mar; 12(3):222-4, 227. PubMed ID: 16597036 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part I. Comparison of counting chambers. Johnson JE, Boone WR, Blackhurst DW. Fertil Steril; 1996 Jan; 65(1):150-5. PubMed ID: 8557132 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [Influence of different filling method-related sperm counting chambers and structural factors of disposable chambers on sperm motility]. Zheng LJ, Zhang JW, Peng YY, Wang HL, Zhou XM, Wang W. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2021 Nov; 27(11):995-1000. PubMed ID: 37422871 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Quantification of bull sperm characteristics measured by computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) and the relationship to fertility. Farrell PB, Presicce GA, Brockett CC, Foote RH. Theriogenology; 1998 Mar; 49(4):871-9. PubMed ID: 10732095 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] Page: [Next] [New Search]