ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Introducing a New Smartphone Applied Semen Analyzer, SpermCell™: A Cross-Sectional Validation Study with a Comparative Analysis and a Mini Patient Questionnaire on a Large Sample Cohort.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing remote smartphone-based semen assessments with laboratory evaluations in men unselected for fertility concerns.Fertility and sterility · 2025Article
- Envisioning a path from the Internet of Medical Things to improved fertility care access: a mini-review.F&S reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Standard semen analysis methods may exhibit variability between observers and/or human error; therefore, additional methods are needed to overcome these handicaps. We aimed to present a new smartphone-applied semen analyzer, Sperm Cell™, investigate its diagnostic efficacy by comparing it with the standard analysis method, and determine its user-friendly nature. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a large sample cohort, including 102 men. Three semen analyses were performed for each semen sample. The first employed the standard manual method, whereas the others were smartphone-based analyses performed by technicians and patients. We compared major semen parameters between the three semen analyses. The user-friendly nature of the analyzer was also evaluated with a mini-questionnaire completed by the participants. (3) Results: The determined median sperm count, motile sperm count, and percentage of motile sperms, on standard manual semen analysis, were 50.00 × 10
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.