Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34430409›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2021

The validity and reliability of computer-aided semen analyzers in performing semen analysis: a systematic review.

Renata Finelli, Kristian Leisegang, Samhita Tumallapalli, Ralf Henkel, Ashok Agarwal

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Renata FinelliAmerican Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Kristian LeisegangSchool of Natural Medicine, Faculty of Community and Health Sciences, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa.
Samhita TumallapalliCase Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Ralf HenkelAmerican Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Ashok AgarwalAmerican Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Cleveland Clinic · USUniversity of the Western Cape · ZAWestern University of Health Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputer-aided sperm analyzers (CASA) are currently used worldwide for semen analysis. However, there are doubts about their reliability to fully substitute the human operator. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review the current literature comparing results from semen evaluation by both CASA-based and manual approaches.

methodsA systematic screening of the literature was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines and by searching on PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases.

resultsA total of 14 studies were included. Our results showed a high degree of correlation for sperm concentration and motility when analysis was performed either manually or by using a CASA system. However, CASA results showed increased variability in low (<15 million/mL) and high (>60 million/mL) concentration specimens, while sperm motility assessment was inaccurate in samples with higher concentration or in the presence of non-sperm cells and debris. Morphology results showed the highest level of difference, due to the high amount of heterogeneity seen between the shapes of the spermatozoa either in one sample or across multiple samples from the same subject.

conclusionsOverall, our study suggests CASA systems as a valid alternative for the evaluation of semen parameters in clinical practice, especially for sperm concentration and motility. However, further technological improvements are required before these devices can one day completely replace the human operator. Artificial intelligence-based CASA devices promise to offer higher efficiency of the analysis and improve the reliability of results.

Indexed as

Computer-aided sperm analyzers (CASA)computer-assisted sperm analysissemen analysissperm concentration

Identifiers

PMID34430409
PMCPMC8350227
OpenAlexW3181240703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.