Trial reportJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2017
Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from sperm selected by MACS from a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2017. 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.
- Global and regional incidence of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Analyzing the Differential Impact of Semen Preparation Methods on the Outcomes of Assisted Reproductive Techniques.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Magnetic-Activated Cell Sorting (MACS): A Useful Sperm-Selection Technique in Cases of High Levels of Sperm DNA Fragmentation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Non-Invasive Approaches to Epigenetic-Based Sperm Selection.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to assess outcomes after magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) technology on obstetric and perinatal outcomes compared with those achieved after swim up from randomized controlled trial.
methodsThis is a two-arm, unicentric, prospective, randomized, and triple-blinded trial and has a total of 237 infertile couples, between October 2010 and January 2013. A total of 65 and 66 newborns from MACS and control group, respectively, were described.
resultsMACS had no clinically relevant adverse effects on obstetric and perinatal outcomes. No differences were found for obstetric problems including premature rupture of membranes 6.1% (CI95% 0-12.8) vs. 5.9% (CI95% 0-12.4), 1st trimester bleeding 28.6% (CI95% 15.9-41.2) vs. 23.5% (CI95% 11.9-35.1), invasive procedures as amniocentesis 2.0% (CI95% 0-5.9) vs. 3.9% (CI95% 0-9.2), diabetes 14.3% (CI95% 4.5-24.1) vs. 9.8% (CI95% 1.6-17.9), anemia 6.1% (CI95% 0-12.8) vs. 5.9%(CI95% 0-12.4), 2nd and 3rd trimesters 10.2% (CI95% 1.7-18.7) vs. 5.9% (CI95% 0-12.4), urinary tract infection 8.2% (CI95% 0.5-15.9) vs. 3.9% (CI95% 0-9.2), pregnancy-induced hypertension 6.1% (CI95% 0-12.8) vs. 15.7% (CI95% 5.7-25.7), birth weight (g) 2684.10 (CI95% 2499.48-2868.72) vs. 2676.12 (CI95% 2499.02-2852.21), neonatal height (cm) 48.3 (CI95% 47.1-49.4) vs. 46.5 (CI95% 44.6-48.4), and gestational cholestasis 0%(CI95% 0-0) vs. 3.9% (CI95% 0-9.2), respectively, in MACS group compared with control group.
conclusionsOur data suggest that MACS technology does not increase or decrease Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes in children conceived when this technology was performed, being the largest randomized control trial with live birth reported results with MACS.
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.