ArticleAsian journal of andrology2026
Evaluation of technicians' ability to accurately identify sperm morphology through EQA programs in China: a 5-year nationwide study (2019-2024).
Article in Asian journal of andrology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated technicians' ability to identify sperm morphology via external quality assessment (EQA) and identified challenging defect types causing significant interparticipant discrepancies. A longitudinal study was conducted from 2019 to 2024 to assess the ability of technicians at various laboratories to identify sperm morphology using standardized EQA protocols and distributed sperm images. Morphological classification was performed using the criteria of the World Health Organization, 6 th edition. Correct identification rates, participant pass rates, and defect-specific accuracy rates were statistically analyzed. The overall correct identification rate (mean ± standard deviation [s.d.]) was 81.3% ± 27.0%, while the correct identification rate of normal sperm morphology (mean ± s.d.) was only 51.1% ± 25.5%. Although the overall correct identification rate of abnormal sperm morphology (mean ± s.d.) was as high as 96.1% ± 8.9%, the overall correct identification rate across all defect categories (mean ± s.d.) was only 60.2% ± 21.7%. The identification of sperm head defects was the most challenging, with a correct identification rate (mean ± s.d.) of only 57.0% ± 20.7%, while the correct identification rate of sperm tail defects (mean ± s.d.) was the highest at 70.5% ± 23.5%. Among sperm head defects, the correct identification rate of head size defects (mean ± s.d.) was the lowest at 53.4% ± 22.0%. Laboratories that participated for 5 consecutive years showed significant improvements in total and normal morphology scores. Image-based EQA effectively assesses the technicians' competency and serves as an educational tool. Normal sperm morphology evaluation should avoid overly strict criteria, while abnormal sperm morphology assessment requires enhanced focus on specific defect types.
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.