ReviewHuman reproduction open2019
The effectiveness of ICSI versus conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Review in Human reproduction open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03428919 (The Effectiveness of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Versus Conventional in Vitro Fertilization in Couples With Non-male Factor Infertility), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 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.
The Effectiveness of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Versus Conventional in Vitro Fertilization in Couples With Non-male Factor Infertility: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in vitro fertilisation in couples with males presenting with normal total sperm count and motility.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in vitro fertilization in infertile couples with normal total sperm count and motility: does sperm morphology matter?Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Trial
- An Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer Vision Model for Human Sperm Concentration, Motility, and Kinematics Analysis.Smart medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of BMI on cumulative live birth rates in patients that completed IVF treatment: a retrospective cohort study of 16,126 patients.Endocrine connections · 2024Article
- Making immotile sperm motile using high-frequency ultrasound.Science advances · 2024Article
- Comparisons of conventional in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in women with thyroid autoimmunity and non-male factor infertility, a propensity score matching analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Observational
- Current Insights and Latest Updates in Sperm Motility and Associated Applications in Assisted Reproduction.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2022Review
- The Morphology of Inner Cell Mass Is the Strongest Predictor of Live Birth After a Frozen-Thawed Single Embryo Transfer.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
- ICSI for non-male factor: do we practice what we preach?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- Perinatal and neonatal outcomes of pregnancies after early rescue intracytoplasmic sperm injection in women with primary infertility compared with conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a retrospective 6-year study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Fertilization and Cleavage Axes Differ In Primates Conceived By Conventional (IVF) Versus Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI).Scientific reports · 2019Article
- ICSI does not offer any benefit over conventional IVF across different ovarian response categories in non-male factor infertility: a European multicenter analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionsDoes ICSI result in a higher live birth rate as compared with conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility? WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: ICSI is primarily indicated for severe male factor infertility. While the use of ICSI for couples with non-male factor infertility has been increasing worldwide, this is not supported by data from randomised controlled trials. Evidence from non-randomised studies suggest no benefit from ICSI compared with conventional IVF in non-male factor infertility, if not a harm. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This randomised, open-label, multi-centre trial aims to compare the effectiveness of one ICSI cycle and one conventional IVF cycle in infertile couples with non-male factor infertility. A total of 1064 couples will be randomly allocated to an ICSI group and a conventional IVF group. The estimated duration of the study is 30 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING
methodsEligible couples are those whose husbands' total sperm count and motility are normal, have undergone ≤2 previous IVF/ICSI attempts, use antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation, agree to have ≤2 embryos transferred and are not participating in another IVF study at the same time. Women undergoing IVM cycles, using frozen semen or having a poor fertilisation (≤25%) in previous cycle will not be eligible. Couples will be randomised to undergo ICSI or conventional IVF (1:1) with ongoing pregnancy resulting in live birth after the first embryo transfer of the started treatment cycle as the primary endpoint. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Effect sizes will be summarised as relative risk (RR), with precision evaluated by 95% CIs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: All authors declare having no conflict of interests with regards to this trial. This work was supported by a grant from MSD [MISP #57508]. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03428919. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 8 February 2018. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: 16 March 2018.
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.