ArticleCureus2023
Interobserver Variability in Semen Analysis: Findings From a Quality Control Initiative.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phthalates as the silent saboteurs of male fertility via changes in semen quality: a systematic review.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Pooled it
- An automatic semen processing system versus a manual method for semen processing: a randomized, single-blind non-inferiority trial.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Trial
- Still counting sperm? Why novel, truly informative measurements of testis function in male infertility are urgently needed.Endocrine · 2025Review
- Disposables used cumulatively in routine IVF procedures could display toxicity.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Observational
- Reassessing Semen Analysis: Clinical Insights Beyond Sperm Count and Motility.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction For laboratory tests, precision and accuracy are indispensable to ensure reliable results for both clinical diagnosis and research endeavors. The accuracy and reliability of results are important because they have an impact on both patient management and research. In this study, we evaluated the inter-observer variability between a trained technician and two academic residents, which acted both as a quality control measure as well as an assessment of training outcomes. Material and methods Freshly obtained semen samples from 28 subjects coming to the andrology laboratory were used. Semen analysis was performed by a regular technician permanently posted in the laboratory and two residents on completion of their posting in the andrology laboratory. All three examined the same sample after liquefaction for assessment of sperm motility, sperm concentration, sperm vitality, and sperm morphology. Semen analysis was done as per the recommendations of the WHO. Results The results of the study are presented as a coefficient of variation (CV), S charts, and Bland-Altman plot where we evaluated the interobserver variability in parameters on semen analysis of the same sample by three different assessors. The mean CV for sperm concentration across the samples was 6.24%. For sperm vitality, sperm morphology, and sperm motility the mean CV was 10.14%, 2.66%, and 8.11%, respectively. The S chart and Bland-Altman plot found a few random errors in measurements. Conclusion Regular quality control assessments are essential and should be implemented in andrology laboratories to ensure accurate and reliable results. Proper training of laboratory personnel is also vital for consistent outcomes. Other measures such as equipment calibration, use of high-quality reagents, and standard reporting are also crucial for the best results from a laboratory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.