ArticleBasic and clinical andrology2025
Comparison of precision of a paperless electronic input method versus the conventional paper form in an andrology laboratory: a prospective study.
Article in Basic and clinical andrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManual counting for semen analysis is recommended by the World Health Organization. Technicians performing this usually record their results on a paper worksheet and then enter the data into an electronic laboratory information system. One disadvantage of this approach is the chance of post-analytical transcription errors, which can be reduced by checking the computer entries before reporting by another technician. Such practice inevitably increases the running cost and delays the reporting time. The present study was to establish a paperless electronic data entry system for semen analysis and compare its precision with the conventional paper method. During semen analysis, readings on the cell counter were video recorded. The precision of the paper record entries was determined by comparing them with the corresponding video records. Patient characteristics and semen analysis results were input directly into an in-house developed data entry system via a tablet computer immediately after analysis. The same set of data was also handwritten on a paper form and was subsequently input into a standard computerized database according to routine practice. The agreement of the data entries between the two systems was then compared.
resultsA total of 787 semen analyses were included in the study, involving 201 samples in Phase I and 586 samples in Phase II of the study. Phase I was the initial learning period. The overall rate of transcription error of the paper form was 0.07%, whereas that of the paperless system was 0.17%. In phase II, the paperless system was modified according to users' comments. The transcription error rate of the paper form was 0.05%, while that of the paperless system was substantially reduced to 0.01% (p = 0.008).
conclusionThe paperless system is a reliable tool for recording data from semen analysis compared with the conventional paper form. However, training is needed to reduce the error rate of the paperless system.
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.