ArticleArab journal of urology2025
Diagnostic accuracy of smartphone technology for capturing videos and images of semen analysis samples: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Arab journal of urology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Semen analysis is an essential indicator of male infertility potential. The study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphones compared to manual microscopy for semen analysis. Method: It is a cross-sectional analytical study with investigator blinding. Data were collected from August to September 2023. Pictures of semen analysis were captured through light microscopy and stored in a coded format on a smartphone. Later, the results of both methods were compared. Results: A total of 50 adequate semen samples were included. The age of enrolled males was Mean±SD 29.4 ± 5.9 years. The sensitivity and specificity were 100% (95% CI 83.9%-100%) and (95% CI 88.1%-100%), respectively, for smartphones compared to light microscopy for total sperm counts. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were both 100%, with (95% CI 83.9%-100%) and (95% CI 88.1%-100%), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for total sperm motility were 97.9%, 100%, 100%, and 66%, respectively. For normal morphology sperm, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of smartphones were 72.7%, 82.1%, 53.3%, and 91.4%, respectively, and for abnormal morphology sperm, they were 100%, 98%, 50%, and 100%, respectively. Smartphones exhibited a sensitivity of 98%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 50% for assessing sperm vitality. The diagnostic agreement between smartphones and light microscopy was very good (κ value -0.6-1) for the detection of total count, vitality, and total motility of sperm. Conclusion: Smartphone technology demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for semen analysis compared to manual microscopy. It also shows excellent agreement with manual microscopy for most parameters in semen analysis. We recommend smartphone reporting for semen analysis in remote areas and poor resource settings.
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.