These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Manual vs. computer-assisted sperm analysis: can CASA replace manual assessment of human semen in clinical practice?
    Author: Talarczyk-Desole J, Berger A, Taszarek-Hauke G, Hauke J, Pawelczyk L, Jedrzejczak P.
    Journal: Ginekol Pol; 2017; 88(2):56-60. PubMed ID: 28326513.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to check the quality of computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) system in comparison to the reference manual method as well as standardization of the computer-assisted semen assessment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted between January and June 2015 at the Andrology Laboratory of the Division of Infertility and Reproductive Endocrinology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poland. The study group consisted of 230 men who gave sperm samples for the first time in our center as part of an infertility investigation. The samples underwent manual and computer-assisted assessment of concentration, motility and morphology. A total of 184 samples were examined twice: manually, according to the 2010 WHO recommendations, and with CASA, using the program set-tings provided by the manufacturer. Additionally, 46 samples underwent two manual analyses and two computer-assisted analyses. The p-value of p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between all of the investigated sperm parameters, except for non-progressive motility, measured with CASA and manually. In the group of patients where all analyses with each method were performed twice on the same sample we found no significant differences between both assessments of the same probe, neither in the samples analyzed manually nor with CASA, although standard deviation was higher in the CASA group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that computer-assisted sperm analysis requires further improvement for a wider application in clinical practice.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]