Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12804403›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional techniques for oocyte insemination during in vitro fertilisation in patients with non-male subfertility.

M M E van Rumste, J L H Evers, C M Farquhar

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04128904 (In Vitro Fertilisation Versus Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Patients Without Severe Male Factor Infertility), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04128904 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

In Vitro Fertilisation Versus Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Patients Without Severe Male Factor Infertility (INVICSI): a Randomised, Controlled, Multicentre Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCopenhagen University Hospital, HvidovreRan2019 to 2027Enrolled824ConditionsInfertilityArmsIVF, ICSI
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Female infertility.BMJ clinical evidence · 2010
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M M E van RumsteObstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Hospital Maastricht, P Debyelaan 25, Postbus 5800, Maastricht, Netherlands. minouchevr@hotmail.com
J L H Evers
C M Farquhar

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn vitro fertilisation (IVF) as treatment for male factor subfertility is associated with lower fertilisation and pregnancy rates than for other indications. Since the late 1980s several assisted fertilisation techniques have emerged and have been rapidly developed to try to enhance results for couples with male factor subfertility, or to help couples with severe male factor for whom conventional IVF was not possible. The techniques of partial zona dissection (PZD) and of subzonal microinjection of spermatozoa into the perivitelline space (SUZI) are by far surpassed by the technique of intra-cytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI). ICSI has proven to be the therapy of choice for couples with severe male factor subfertility.

objectivesTo investigate whether ICSI improves livebirth rate in comparison to IVF in couples with non-male subfertility. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (searched 30 May 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2002), PubMed (January 1992 to July 2002) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included if they compared the effects of these techniques on livebirths, pregnancy and fertilisation outcomes. Only randomised studies were included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One study met the inclusion criteria for this review. The study compared ICSI with IVF within couples with non-male infertility. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers. MAIN

resultsThere were no randomised data comparing livebirth rates. The single identified study did not find a difference in pregnancy rates (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.2). There were no randomised data on miscarriage rates, or on other adverse events such as congenital malformations that may be of concern. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsWhether ICSI should be preferred to IVF for cases of non-male factor subfertility remains an open question. Further research should report livebirth rates and adverse events.

Indexed as

Embryo ImplantationFertilization in VitroSperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicFemaleHumansInfertilityRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.