对 SQA 视觉分析仪与人工精液分析仪性能进行比较的回顾性研究。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-15 DOI:10.1080/00365513.2024.2392245
Claudio Ilardo, Naomi Defort, Anna Gala, Violaine Ostengo, Gilles Regnier Vigouroux, Guillaune Quere, Pierre Sanguinet
{"title":"对 SQA 视觉分析仪与人工精液分析仪性能进行比较的回顾性研究。","authors":"Claudio Ilardo, Naomi Defort, Anna Gala, Violaine Ostengo, Gilles Regnier Vigouroux, Guillaune Quere, Pierre Sanguinet","doi":"10.1080/00365513.2024.2392245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to compare the results of semen analysis using the manual method and the SQA-Vision sperm analyser after four years of practice and with a large cohort of patients. This was a comparative study of 1130 cases collected for semen analysis between October 2019 and October 2023, which were analysed simultaneously and independently by different operators using the manual microscopic method and an SQA-V automated analyser. For each sample, sperm concentration, progressive motility, motility, normal morphology, and round cells count were performed. There was no significant difference between the SQA-V method and manual assessment for all sperm parameters (Mann-Whitney test <i>p</i> > 0.05). According to the parameter studied, there was a strong correlation (rho = 0.81) and a very high correlation (rho = 0.98) between manual assessment and the SQA-V method. In the analysis of sperm concentration, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 and 0.99, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for the analysis of sperm progressive motility were 0.98 and 0.99, respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity for the analysis of sperm motility were 0.87 and 0.99, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for the analysis of normal morphology were 0.88 and 0.99, respectively. Regarding the analysis of round cells, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.98 and 0.99, respectively. The results of this retrospective study indicate that the SQA-V system offers satisfactory performance for routine sperm analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":21474,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"373-378"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrospective study investigating the performance of the SQA-vision analyser compared with manual semen analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Claudio Ilardo, Naomi Defort, Anna Gala, Violaine Ostengo, Gilles Regnier Vigouroux, Guillaune Quere, Pierre Sanguinet\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00365513.2024.2392245\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The objective of this study was to compare the results of semen analysis using the manual method and the SQA-Vision sperm analyser after four years of practice and with a large cohort of patients. This was a comparative study of 1130 cases collected for semen analysis between October 2019 and October 2023, which were analysed simultaneously and independently by different operators using the manual microscopic method and an SQA-V automated analyser. For each sample, sperm concentration, progressive motility, motility, normal morphology, and round cells count were performed. There was no significant difference between the SQA-V method and manual assessment for all sperm parameters (Mann-Whitney test <i>p</i> > 0.05). According to the parameter studied, there was a strong correlation (rho = 0.81) and a very high correlation (rho = 0.98) between manual assessment and the SQA-V method. In the analysis of sperm concentration, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 and 0.99, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for the analysis of sperm progressive motility were 0.98 and 0.99, respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity for the analysis of sperm motility were 0.87 and 0.99, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for the analysis of normal morphology were 0.88 and 0.99, respectively. Regarding the analysis of round cells, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.98 and 0.99, respectively. The results of this retrospective study indicate that the SQA-V system offers satisfactory performance for routine sperm analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"373-378\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2024.2392245\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2024.2392245","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是比较使用人工方法和 SQA-Vision 精子分析仪进行精液分析四年后的结果,以及大量患者的情况。这是一项比较研究,收集了2019年10月至2023年10月期间进行精液分析的1130个病例,由不同操作人员使用手动显微镜方法和SQA-V自动分析仪同时进行独立分析。对每个样本都进行了精子浓度、进行性活力、运动能力、正常形态和圆细胞计数的分析。在所有精子参数上,SQA-V 方法与人工评估没有明显差异(曼-惠特尼检验 p > 0.05)。根据所研究的参数,人工评估与 SQA-V 方法之间存在很强的相关性(rho = 0.81)和很高的相关性(rho = 0.98)。在精子浓度分析中,灵敏度和特异性分别为 0.90 和 0.99。精子渐进运动分析的灵敏度和特异度分别为 0.98 和 0.99,而精子运动分析的灵敏度和特异度分别为 0.87 和 0.99。正常形态分析的灵敏度和特异性分别为 0.88 和 0.99。至于圆形细胞的分析,灵敏度和特异度分别为 0.98 和 0.99。这项回顾性研究的结果表明,SQA-V 系统在常规精子分析中的表现令人满意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Retrospective study investigating the performance of the SQA-vision analyser compared with manual semen analysis.

The objective of this study was to compare the results of semen analysis using the manual method and the SQA-Vision sperm analyser after four years of practice and with a large cohort of patients. This was a comparative study of 1130 cases collected for semen analysis between October 2019 and October 2023, which were analysed simultaneously and independently by different operators using the manual microscopic method and an SQA-V automated analyser. For each sample, sperm concentration, progressive motility, motility, normal morphology, and round cells count were performed. There was no significant difference between the SQA-V method and manual assessment for all sperm parameters (Mann-Whitney test p > 0.05). According to the parameter studied, there was a strong correlation (rho = 0.81) and a very high correlation (rho = 0.98) between manual assessment and the SQA-V method. In the analysis of sperm concentration, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 and 0.99, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for the analysis of sperm progressive motility were 0.98 and 0.99, respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity for the analysis of sperm motility were 0.87 and 0.99, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for the analysis of normal morphology were 0.88 and 0.99, respectively. Regarding the analysis of round cells, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.98 and 0.99, respectively. The results of this retrospective study indicate that the SQA-V system offers satisfactory performance for routine sperm analysis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
85
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation is an international scientific journal covering clinically oriented biochemical and physiological research. Since the launch of the journal in 1949, it has been a forum for international laboratory medicine, closely related to, and edited by, The Scandinavian Society for Clinical Chemistry. The journal contains peer-reviewed articles, editorials, invited reviews, and short technical notes, as well as several supplements each year. Supplements consist of monographs, and symposium and congress reports covering subjects within clinical chemistry and clinical physiology.
期刊最新文献
Analytical interference on measurement of immunoglobulins in monoclonal gammopathy. FlowDiff: a simple, flow cytometry-based approach for performing a leukocyte differential count. Reference intervals for 23 common biochemical parameters during pregnancy and the first six postpartum months. Prevalence of monoclonal proteins in patients with isolated hypogammaglobulinemia on serum protein electrophoresis. Challenges of preanalytical variables in erythrocyte sedimentation rate: a CUBE 30 touch evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1