Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30712901›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2019

Physiological, hyaluronan-selected intracytoplasmic sperm injection for infertility treatment (HABSelect): a parallel, two-group, randomised trial.

David Miller, Susan Pavitt, Vinay Sharma, Gordon Forbes, Richard Hooper, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Jackson Kirkman-Brown, Arri Coomarasamy, Sheena Lewis, Rachel Cutting and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
23.7field-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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Sperm Selection Procedures in Cases of High Sperm DNA Fragmentation Index.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  8. Sperm DNA Fragmentation: The Concept and Its Use in Assisted Reproduction.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Sperm selection for assisted reproductive technology: do we have a winner?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

David MillerLeeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds Laboratories, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. Electronic address: d.miller@leeds.ac.uk.
Susan PavittDental Translational and Clinical Research Unit, Leeds National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Facility, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Vinay SharmaThe Leeds Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Seacroft Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Gordon ForbesPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Richard HooperPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Siladitya BhattacharyaSchool of Medicine, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Jackson Kirkman-BrownInstitute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham Women's and Children's National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Arri CoomarasamyInstitute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham Women's and Children's National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Sheena LewisExamen Ltd, Belfast, UK.
Rachel CuttingSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Daniel BrisonDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Allan PaceyDepartment of Oncology & Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Robert WestLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Kate BrianRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK.
Darren GriffinSchool of Biosciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Yakoub KhalafGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
University of Leeds · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBBirmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust · GBCardiff University · GBGuy's Hospital · GBNational Health Service · GBRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists · GBSeacroft Hospital · GBSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBSt. Mary's Hospital · GBUniversity of Kent · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSperm selection strategies aimed at improving success rates of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) include binding to hyaluronic acid (herein termed hyaluronan). Hyaluronan-selected sperm have reduced levels of DNA damage and aneuploidy. Use of hyaluronan-based sperm selection for ICSI (so-called physiological ICSI [PICSI]) is reported to reduce the proportion of pregnancies that end in miscarriage. However, the effect of PICSI on livebirth rates is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of PICSI versus standard ICSI for improving livebirth rates among couples undergoing fertility treatment.

methodsThis parallel, two-group, randomised trial included couples undergoing an ICSI procedure with fresh embryo transfer at 16 assisted conception units in the UK. Eligible women (aged 18-43 years) had a body-mass index of 19-35 kg/m

findingsBetween Feb 1, 2014, and Aug 31, 2016, 2772 couples were randomly assigned to receive PICSI (n=1387) or ICSI (n=1385), of whom 2752 (1381 in the PICSI group and 1371 in the ICSI group) were included in the primary analysis. The term livebirth rate did not differ significantly between PICSI (27·4% [379/1381]) and ICSI (25·2% [346/1371]) groups (odds ratio 1·12, 95% CI 0·95-1·34; p=0·18). There were 56 serious adverse events in total, including 31 in the PICSI group and 25 in the ICSI group; most were congenital abnormalities and none were attributed to treatment.

interpretationCompared with ICSI, PICSI does not significantly improve term livebirth rates. The wider use of PICSI, therefore, is not recommended at present.

fundingNational Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme.

Indexed as

Sperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicAdolescentAdultEmbryo ImplantationEmbryo TransferFemaleHumansHyaluronic AcidInfertilityMaleMiddle AgedPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy RateTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomHyaluronic Acid

Identifiers

PMID30712901
PMCPMC6409400
OpenAlexW2911232140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.