ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Investigations on semen analysis capabilities and quality control measures in laboratories with different management modes.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo perform a survey on the semen analysis capabilities and quality control measures of medical institutions conducting male infertility-related testing in Jiangsu, China, by the WeChat, aiming to explore the possibility of mutual recognition of testing results among different laboratories.
methodsThis study designed a survey questionnaire consisting of 105 questions and investigated and compared semen analysis capabilities and quality control measures between regulated laboratories for assisted reproductive technology (RLART) and non-regulated laboratories for assisted reproductive technology (non-RLART) in Jiangsu, China.
resultsRLART had higher percentages of technicians received training on the WHO manual (97.14% [34/35] vs. 57.14% [28/49], P < 0.01), dedicated rooms for semen collection (100% [35/35] vs. 24.49% [12/49], P < 0.01), adherence to the staining methods recommended by the WHO manual (100% [32/32] vs. 33.33% [11/33], P < 0.01), internal quality control for sperm concentration (77.14% [27/35] vs. 6.12% [3/49], P < 0.01), and participation in external quality assessment (74.29% [26/35] vs. 14.29% [7/49], P < 0.01) compared to non-PLART.
conclusionsEstablishing unified recognition criteria for semen analysis laboratories and conducting regular supervision can improve semen analysis capabilities and promote mutual recognition of semen testing results.
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.