ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2015
Poor-responder patients do not benefit from intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced Sperm Selection Strategies as a Treatment for Infertile Couples: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection versus conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a randomized controlled trial.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2015Trial
- Article
- Novel Techniques of Sperm Selection for Improving IVF and ICSI Outcomes.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2019Review
- The Beneficial Role of Intra Cytoplasmic Morphologically Selected Sperm Injection (IMSI) in Assisted Reproduction.Journal of reproduction & infertilityReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the outcomes of ICSI and IMSI in women presenting with poor ovarian response.
methodsData of IMSI cycles performed from January 2011 to December 2013 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups: normoresponder patients (NR group; patients with > 4 oocytes retrieved) and poor-responder patients (PR group; patients with ≤ 4 oocytes retrieved). Patients who underwent IMSI were matched with patients who underwent ICSI in the same period. The ICSI and IMSI outcomes were compared in the NR and PR groups.
resultsA total of 414 matched cycles were included in this study. The NR group comprised 324 cycles (164 ICSI and 160 IMSI cycles), and the PR group comprised 90 cycles (43 ICSI and 47 IMSI cycles). In the NR group, no significant differences were observed between the ICSI- and IMSI-treated couples regarding cycle outcomes. In the PR group, fertilisation rate was significantly lower in IMSI-treated couples (53.9% ± 36.7% vs. 79.8% ± 29.3%). The proportion of cycles with embryo transfer (57.4 vs. 79.1%) and the number of transferred embryos (1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.9 ± 0.7) were significantly lower in IMSI compared with ICSI. Implantation, pregnancy and miscarriage rates were similar when ICSI or IMSI were performed.
conclusionsOur results suggest that unselected couples undergoing ICSI that present with poor ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation do not benefit from sperm selection under high magnification prior to ICSI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.