IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlvet/v57y2012i7id6264-vetmed.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of a simple method for the interpretation of uterine cytology in cows

Author

Listed:
  • M. Prieto

    (Unit of Reproduction and Obstetrics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain)

  • M. Barrio

    (Unit of Reproduction and Obstetrics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain)

  • L.A. Quintela

    (Unit of Reproduction and Obstetrics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain)

  • C.C. Perez-marin

    (Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Cordoba, Spain)

  • J.J. Becerra

    (Unit of Reproduction and Obstetrics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain)

  • M. Vigo

    (Unit of Reproduction and Obstetrics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain)

  • C. Diaz

    (Unit of Reproduction and Obstetrics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain)

  • J. Cainzos

    (Unit of Reproduction and Obstetrics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain)

  • A. Prieto

    (Unit of Reproduction and Obstetrics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain)

  • F.I. Fernandez

    (Unit of Embryo transfer (FEFRIGA), Bos, A coruna, Spain)

  • D. Martinez

    (Unit of Embryo transfer (FEFRIGA), Bos, A coruna, Spain)

  • P.G. Herradon

    (Unit of Reproduction and Obstetrics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain)

Abstract

One of the main drawbacks of using endometrial cytology in cows is the time required for sample collection and interpretation. It is recommended to count a large number of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN) and to calculate their overall percentage. However, since counting a large number of cells is a laborious method, it would be preferable to simplify the analysis by counting the number of PMN in few microscopic fields. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess whether a simple test, based on calculating the average number of PMN in 10 fields at 1000×, could be a reliable technique for the diagnosis of endometritis. Two hundred and sixty endometrial samples were taken from Holstein cows at different postpartum stages using an adapted cytobrush. Smears obtained were air-dried for fixing and stained with a Romanowsky-type procedure. To evaluate the counting method, the percentage of PMN in 150 cells was calculated as well as the average number of PMN in 10 fields at 1000×. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was constructed to evaluate both methods, the percentage of PMN (used as reference) and the average number of PMN. It was observed that the area under the curve is (regardless of cut-off used) higher than 0.99 and the correspondence between both methods were 1.58 PMN/field for the cut-off value of 15% and 2.40 PMN/field for the cut-off value of 20%. These results show that this simple method could be used to determine the percentage of PMN in endometrial cytological samples and to diagnose endometritis in cows.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Prieto & M. Barrio & L.A. Quintela & C.C. Perez-marin & J.J. Becerra & M. Vigo & C. Diaz & J. Cainzos & A. Prieto & F.I. Fernandez & D. Martinez & P.G. Herradon, 2012. "Validation of a simple method for the interpretation of uterine cytology in cows," Veterinární medicína, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 57(7), pages 360-363.
  • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlvet:v:57:y:2012:i:7:id:6264-vetmed
    DOI: 10.17221/6264-VETMED
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://vetmed.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/6264-VETMED.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: http://vetmed.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/6264-VETMED.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/6264-VETMED?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlvet:v:57:y:2012:i:7:id:6264-vetmed. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.