Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 35–43 | Cite as

Double-blind prospective study comparing two automated sperm analyzers versus manual semen assessment

  • J. Lammers
  • C. Splingart
  • P. Barrière
  • M. Jean
  • T. Fréour
Technological Innovations



Despite controversy regarding its clinical value, male fertility investigation mainly relies on semen analysis. Even though reference guidelines are available, manual sperm analysis still suffers from analytical variability, thus questioning the interest of automated sperm analysis systems. The aim of this study is to compared automated computerized semen analysis systems (SQA-V GOLD and CASA CEROS) to the conventional manual method in terms of accuracy and precision.


We included 250 men in this double-blind prospective study. The SQA-V GOLD (Medical Electronic Systems) and CEROS, CASA system (Hamilton Thorne) were compared to the standard manual assessment based on the WHO 5th Edition. The main outcome measures were sperm concentration, total sperm number, total motility, progressive motility, non-progressive motility, morphology, motile sperm concentration (MSC) and progressively motile sperm concentration (PMSC) with the three methods.


Statistical analysis of the test results from the automated systems and the manual method demonstrated no significant differences for most of the semen parameters. The Spearman coefficients of rank correlation (rho) for CASA and the SQA-V GOLD automated systems vs. the manual method were: Sperm concentration (0.95 and 0.95), total sperm number (0.95 and 0.95), MSC (0.94 and 0.96) and PMSC (0.94 and 0.93) correspondingly. Concerning sperm morphology, both automated systems demonstrated high specificity (Sp) and negative predictive values (NPV), despite significantly different medians (CASA: 83.7 % for Sp and 95.2 % for NPV, SQA-V: 97.9 % for Sp and 92.5 %). The highest precision (lowest 95 % confidence interval for duplicate tests) for all semen variables was found in the SQA-V GOLD.


The advantages of using automated semen analysers are: Standardization, speed (lower turnaround time), precision, reduced potential for human error, automated data recording and less need for highly skilled professionals to run the systems. The disadvantages of using automated systems are: notably the problem with testing some atypical samples and the inability to perform an assessment of morphology abnormalities. Based on the results of this study, the SQA-V Gold demonstrated better agreement vs. the manual method. In conclusion, automated semen analyzers can be used for routine semen analysis providing rapid clinically acceptable results with higher precision, and positively impacting laboratory standardization.


Male infertility Semen analysis SQA-V GOLD CASA WHO 5th manual for sperm analysis 



All the authors disclose financial interests.

Conflict of interest

All the authors confirm that they have nothing to disclose.

Grant, support



  1. 1.
    De Jonge C. Semen analysis: looking for an upgrade in class. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:260–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guzick DS et al. Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1388–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Auger J et al. Intra- and inter-individual variability in human sperm concentration, motility and vitality assessment during a workshop involving ten laboratories. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2360–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keel BA et al. Results of the American Association of Bioanalysts national proficiency testing programme in andrology. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:680–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Filimberti E et al. High variability in results of semen analysis in Andrology Laboratories in Tuscany (Italy): the experience of an external quality control (EQC) programme. Andrology. 2013;1:401–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mallidis C et al. Ten years’ experience with an external quality control program for semen analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:611–e4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    WHO. Laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cooper TG et al. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:231–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Agarwal A, Sharma RK. Automation is the key to standardized semen analysis using the automated SQA-V sperm quality analyzer. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:156–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hirano Y et al. Relationships between sperm motility characteristics assessed by the computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) and fertilization rates in vitro. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001;18:213–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fuse H et al. Assessment of sperm quality analyzer II B: comparison with manual semen analysis and CASA. Arch Androl. 2005;51:65–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Akashi T et al. Usefulness of sperm quality analyzer-V (SQA-V) for the assessment of sperm quality in infertile men. Arch Androl. 2005;51:437–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tomlinson MJ et al. Validation of a novel computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) system using multitarget-tracking algorithms. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:1911–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iguer-Ouada M, Verstegen JP. Validation of the sperm quality analyzer (SQA) for dog sperm analysis. Theriogenology. 2001;55:1143–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schieferstein G, Hook-Vervier B, Schwarz M. Sperm motility index. Arch Androl. 1998;40:43–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martinez C et al. Sperm motility index: a quick screening parameter from sperm quality analyser-IIB to rule out oligo- and asthenozoospermia in male fertility study. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1727–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yeung CH, Cooper TG, Nieschlag E. A technique for standardization and quality control of subjective sperm motility assessments in semen analysis. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:1156–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis RO, Boyers SP. The role of digital image analysis in reproductive biology and medicine. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;16:351–63.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jagoe JR et al. Sperm morphology by image analysis compared with subjective assessment. Br J Urol. 1987;60:457–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moruzzi JF et al. Quantification and classification of human sperm morphology by computer-assisted image analysis. Fertil Steril. 1988;50:142–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Esbert M et al. Impact of sperm DNA fragmentation on the outcome of IVF with own or donated oocytes. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23:704–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewis SE. Is sperm evaluation useful in predicting human fertility? Reproduction. 2007;134:31–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Merwe FH et al. The use of semen parameters to identify the subfertile male in the general population. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2005;59:86–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Menkveld R. Clinical significance of the low normal sperm morphology value as proposed in the fifth edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. Asian J Androl. 2010;12:47–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brazil C et al. Standardized methods for semen evaluation in a multicenter research study. J Androl. 2004;25:635–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mahmoud AM et al. The performance of 10 different methods for the estimation of sperm concentration. Fertil Steril. 1997;68:340–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Davis RO, Katz DF. Operational standards for CASA instruments. J Androl. 1993;14:385–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vantman D et al. Computer-assisted semen analysis: evaluation of method and assessment of the influence of sperm concentration on linear velocity determination. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:510–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Togni G et al. Computer-aided semen analysis: sperm concentration assessment by the Stromberg-Mika system. Andrologia. 1995;27:55–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johnson JE, Boone WR, Blackhurst DW. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part I. Comparison of counting chambers. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:150–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johnson JE, Boone WR, Blackhurst DW. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part II. Determination of the working range of a computer-automated semen analyzer. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:156–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johnson JE, Boone WR, Blackhurst DW. Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part III. Comparison of old versus new design MicroCell Chambers. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:446–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Holt W et al. Reproducibility of computer-aided semen analysis: comparison of five different systems used in a practical workshop. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:1277–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Lammers
    • 1
  • C. Splingart
    • 1
  • P. Barrière
    • 1
  • M. Jean
    • 1
  • T. Fréour
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Service de Médecine et Biologie de la ReproductionUniversity Hospital of NantesNantes CedexFrance
  2. 2.Hôpital Mère et EnfantCHU de NantesNantes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations