File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

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

TitleComparison of precision of a paperless electronic input method versus the conventional paper form in an andrology laboratory: a prospective study
Authors
KeywordsAndrology
Data entry
Data precision
Semen analysis
Issue Date13-Jan-2025
PublisherSpringer Nature
Citation
Basic and Clinical Andrology, 2025, v. 35, n. 1 How to Cite?
Abstract

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.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/355339

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLam, Kevin KW-
dc.contributor.authorTsang, Percy CK-
dc.contributor.authorChan, Connie CY-
dc.contributor.authorNg, Evans PK-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, Tak-Ming-
dc.contributor.authorLi, Raymond HW-
dc.contributor.authorNg, Ernest HY-
dc.contributor.authorYeung, William SB-
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-04T00:35:13Z-
dc.date.available2025-04-04T00:35:13Z-
dc.date.issued2025-01-13-
dc.identifier.citationBasic and Clinical Andrology, 2025, v. 35, n. 1-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/355339-
dc.description.abstract<h3>Background</h3><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>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% (<em>p</em> = 0.008).</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>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.</p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSpringer Nature-
dc.relation.ispartofBasic and Clinical Andrology-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectAndrology-
dc.subjectData entry-
dc.subjectData precision-
dc.subjectSemen analysis-
dc.titleComparison of precision of a paperless electronic input method versus the conventional paper form in an andrology laboratory: a prospective study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12610-024-00248-9-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85217638043-
dc.identifier.volume35-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.eissn2051-4190-
dc.identifier.issnl2051-4190-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats