Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29967387›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2018

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection for male infertility and consequences for offspring.

Sandro C Esteves, Matheus Roque, Giuliano Bedoschi, Thor Haahr, Peter Humaidan

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
111citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
18.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

111 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 240 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pharmacogenetics of FSH Action in the Male.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2019
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

51 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Sandro C EstevesANDROFERT, Andrology and Human Reproduction Clinic, Campinas, Brazil. s.esteves@androfert.com.br.ORCID 0000-0002-1313-9680
Matheus RoqueORIGEN, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Giuliano BedoschiDivision of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Thor HaahrFaculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Peter HumaidanFaculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has become the most commonly used method of fertilization in assisted reproductive technology. The primary reasons for its popularity stem from its effectiveness, the standardization of the procedure, which means that it can easily be incorporated into the routine practice of fertility centres worldwide, and the fact that it can be used to treat virtually all forms of infertility. ICSI is the clear method of choice for overcoming untreatable severe male factor infertility, but its (over)use in other male and non-male factor infertility scenarios is not evidence-based. Despite all efforts to increase ICSI efficacy and safety through the application of advanced sperm retrieval and cryopreservation techniques, as well as methods for selecting sperm with better chromatin integrity, the overall pregnancy rates from infertile men remain suboptimal. Treating the underlying male infertility factor before ICSI seems to be a promising way to improve ICSI outcomes, but data remain limited. Information regarding the health of ICSI offspring has accumulated over the past 25 years, and there are reasons for concern as risks of congenital malformations, epigenetic disorders, chromosomal abnormalities, subfertility, cancer, delayed psychological and neurological development, and impaired cardiometabolic profile have been observed to be greater in infants born as a result of ICSI than in naturally conceived children. However, as subfertility probably influences the risk estimates, it remains to be determined to what extent the observed adverse outcomes are related to parental factors or associated with ICSI.

Indexed as

Sperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicChildChild DevelopmentFemaleHumansInfertility, MaleMalePregnancyPregnancy RateTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID29967387
OpenAlexW2810157783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.