Ashok Agarwal1, Rakesh K Sharma. 1. Reproductive Research Center, Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA. agarwaa@ccf.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the automated semen quality analyzer system for assessing sperm quality. DESIGN: Double-blind prospective study. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. PATIENT(S): Fifty healthy men donated semen samples. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Precision, accuracy and agreement between automated and manual semen analysis methods was assessed for sperm concentration, motility, morphology, and known concentrations of latex bead quality control media. RESULT(S): A good agreement was seen between the results of sperm concentration reported by the SQA-V automated analyzer (Spermalite/SQA-V; Medical Electronic Systems Ltd, Caesarea Industrial Park, Israel) and those obtained manually. A similar linearity was seen when the SQA-V results were compared with the manual data and also when the manual results of individual operators were compared with each other. The automated assessment of morphology showed high sensitivity (89.9%) for identifying percent normal morphology, and the precision of the SQA-V was considerably higher when compared with the manual method. The interoperator variability for manual assessment was significant. The automated analysis was quick compared with the manual method. CONCLUSION(S): The SQA-V can be used interchangeably with manual semen analysis methods for examining sperm concentration and motility. The automated SQA-V analyzer is more precise and shows the ability to accurately classify normal versus abnormal sperm morphology.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the automated semen quality analyzer system for assessing sperm quality. DESIGN: Double-blind prospective study. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. PATIENT(S): Fifty healthy men donated semen samples. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Precision, accuracy and agreement between automated and manual semen analysis methods was assessed for sperm concentration, motility, morphology, and known concentrations of latex bead quality control media. RESULT(S): A good agreement was seen between the results of sperm concentration reported by the SQA-V automated analyzer (Spermalite/SQA-V; Medical Electronic Systems Ltd, Caesarea Industrial Park, Israel) and those obtained manually. A similar linearity was seen when the SQA-V results were compared with the manual data and also when the manual results of individual operators were compared with each other. The automated assessment of morphology showed high sensitivity (89.9%) for identifying percent normal morphology, and the precision of the SQA-V was considerably higher when compared with the manual method. The interoperator variability for manual assessment was significant. The automated analysis was quick compared with the manual method. CONCLUSION(S): The SQA-V can be used interchangeably with manual semen analysis methods for examining sperm concentration and motility. The automated SQA-V analyzer is more precise and shows the ability to accurately classify normal versus abnormal sperm morphology.