Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 13;35(1):1.
doi: 10.1186/s12610-024-00248-9.

Comparison of precision of a paperless electronic input method versus the conventional paper form in an andrology laboratory: a prospective study

Kevin K W Lam  1   2 , Percy C K Tsang  3 , Connie C Y Chan  3 , Evans P K Ng  3 , Tak-Ming Cheung  3 , Raymond H W Li  3 , Ernest H Y Ng  3 , William S B Yeung  3
Affiliations

Comparison of precision of a paperless electronic input method versus the conventional paper form in an andrology laboratory: a prospective study

Kevin K W Lam et al. Basic Clin Androl. .

Abstract
in English, French

Background: Manual counting for semen analysis is recommended by the World Health Organization. Technicians performing this usually record their results on a paper worksheet and then enter the data into an electronic laboratory information system. One disadvantage of this approach is the chance of post-analytical transcription errors, which can be reduced by checking the computer entries before reporting by another technician. Such practice inevitably increases the running cost and delays the reporting time. The present study was to establish a paperless electronic data entry system for semen analysis and compare its precision with the conventional paper method. During semen analysis, readings on the cell counter were video recorded. The precision of the paper record entries was determined by comparing them with the corresponding video records. Patient characteristics and semen analysis results were input directly into an in-house developed data entry system via a tablet computer immediately after analysis. The same set of data was also handwritten on a paper form and was subsequently input into a standard computerized database according to routine practice. The agreement of the data entries between the two systems was then compared.

Results: A total of 787 semen analyses were included in the study, involving 201 samples in Phase I and 586 samples in Phase II of the study. Phase I was the initial learning period. The overall rate of transcription error of the paper form was 0.07%, whereas that of the paperless system was 0.17%. In phase II, the paperless system was modified according to users' comments. The transcription error rate of the paper form was 0.05%, while that of the paperless system was substantially reduced to 0.01% (p = 0.008).

Conclusion: The paperless system is a reliable tool for recording data from semen analysis compared with the conventional paper form. However, training is needed to reduce the error rate of the paperless system.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Le comptage manuel pour analyse du sperme est recommandé par l’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé. Les techniciens qui effectuent cette opération enregistrent généralement leurs résultats sur un formulaire papier, puis saisissent les données dans un système d’information électronique de laboratoire. L’un des inconvénients de cette approche est le risque d’erreurs de transcription post-analytiques, qui peuvent être réduites en vérifiant les entrées de l’ordinateur avant de les signaler par un autre technicien. Une telle pratique augmente inévitablement les coûts de fonctionnement et retarde le délai de compte-rendu. La présente étude visait à établir un système de saisie électronique sans papier pour l’analyse du sperme, et à comparer sa précision avec la méthode conventionnelle sur papier. Au cours de l’analyse du sperme, les lectures sur le compteur cellulaire ont été enregistrées sur vidéo. La précision des entrées des enregistrements papier a été déterminée en les comparant avec les enregistrements vidéo correspondants. Les caractéristiques du patient et les résultats de l’analyse du sperme ont été saisis directement dans un système de saisie de données développé en interne via une tablette immédiatement après l’analyse. Le même ensemble de données a également été écrit à la main sur un formulaire papier et a ensuite été saisi dans une base de données informatisée standard conformément à la pratique courante. La concordance des saisies de données entre les deux systèmes a ensuite été comparée. RéSULTATS: Au total, 787 analyses de sperme ont été incluses dans l’étude, impliquant 201 échantillons dans la phase I et 586 échantillons dans la phase II de l’étude. La phase I a constitué la période d’apprentissage initiale. Le taux global d’erreur de transcription du formulaire papier était de 0,07 %, tandis que celui du système sans papier était de 0,17 %.Lors de la phase II, le système sans papier a été modifié en fonction des commentaires des utilisateurs. Le taux d’erreur de transcription du formulaire papier était de 0,05 %, tandis que celui du système sans papier a été considérablement réduit à 0,01 % (p = 0,008). CONCLUSIONS: Le système sans papier est un outil fiable pour l’enregistrement des données d’analyse du sperme par rapport au format papier conventionnel. Cependant, une formation est nécessaire pour réduire le taux d’erreur du système sans papier.

Keywords: Andrology; Data entry; Data precision; Semen analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable; No human subject was recruited. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Screenshot of the electronic data input interface. The entry fields for sperm motility assessment are shown. A warning signal (in red) was shown on the second row of the last column when the sum of all motility grades was not equal to 100%. At least 400 spermatozoa were assessed in two replicates for motility assessment. The values between the two replicates were within the 5% error limit. Abbreviation: 50LPF – 50 low power field
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Screenshot of the electronic data input interface. The entry fields for sperm concentration assessment are shown. At least 400 spermatozoa were assessed in two replicates for sperm concentration assessment. The values between the two replicates were within the 5% error limit. Rounded sampling error will be shown when less than 400 spermatozoa were counted
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen, 6th ed. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240030787. Accessed 01 Jan 2024.
    1. Tuckerman JF, Henderson AR. The clinical biochemistry laboratory computer system and result entry: validation of analytical results. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1985;20(1):103–16. 10.1016/0169-2607(85)90050-1. - PubMed
    1. Shaw R, Coia JE, Michie J. Use of bar code readers and programmable keypads to improve the speed and accuracy of manual data entry in the clinical microbiology laboratory: experience of two laboratories. J Clin Pathol. 1999;52(1):54–60. 10.1136/jcp.52.1.54. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Paulsen A, Overgaard S, Lauritsen JM. Quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing–an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(4):e35087. 10.1371/journal.pone.0035087. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hong MK, Yao HH, Pedersen JS, et al. Error rates in a clinical data repository: lessons from the transition to electronic data transfer--a descriptive study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(5). 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002406. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources