ReviewThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019
Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination.
Review in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Optimizing intrauterine insemination: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of clinical treatment add-ons.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Pooled it
- Double versus single intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Clinical Outcomes: A Non-Inferiority Comparison of The Novel Felix™ Electrophoretic System and Conventional Density Gradient Centrifugation for Sperm Selection, A Prospective Clinical Trial.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2026Article
- Article
- Sperm Sexing in Selected Animals and Humans: Methods, Applications, and Future Prospects.Andrology · 2026Review
- Clinical Pregnancy Rate in Intrauterine Insemination and Associated Prognostic Factors.Annals of African medicine · 2026Observational
- A retrospective cohort study: predictive nomogram for clinical pregnancy outcomes after intrauterine insemination.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Sperm Selection Procedures in Cases of High Sperm DNA Fragmentation Index.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Sperm selection for assisted reproductive technology: do we have a winner?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Review
- Male infertility.Systems biology in reproductive medicine · 2025Review
- Timing Matters? Impact of Early Sperm Processing on Motile Sperm Recovery, Fertilization, Blastocyst Rate, and Pregnancy Outcomes in IUI and IVF.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Sperm Separation and Selection Techniques to Mitigate Sperm DNA Damage.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Non-invasive applications of Raman spectroscopy in assisted reproduction.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- A narrative review of sperm selection technology for assisted reproduction techniques.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Sperm Migration and Hyaluronic Acid Binding: Implications for Male Fertility Evaluation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Influence of BMI, Cigarette Smoking and Cryopreservation on Tyrosine Phosphorylation during Sperm Capacitation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Advanced Sperm Selection Techniques for Assisted Reproduction.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Intrauterine insemination: prognostic factors.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2024Observational
- Safety of Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF) as additive to healthy human sperm samples: a pilot study.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSemen preparation techniques for assisted reproduction, including intrauterine insemination (IUI), were developed to select the motile morphologically normal spermatozoa. The yield of many motile, morphologically normal spermatozoa might influence treatment choices and therefore outcomes.
objectivesTo compare the effectiveness of three different semen preparation techniques (gradient; swim-up; wash and centrifugation) on clinical outcomes (live birth rate; clinical pregnancy rate) in subfertile couples undergoing IUI. SEARCH
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct Database, National Research Register, Biological Abstracts and clinical trial registries in March 2019, and checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy in terms of clinical outcomes of semen preparation techniques used for subfertile couples undergoing IUI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes are live birth rate and clinical pregnancy rate per couple. MAIN
resultsWe included seven RCTS in the review; we included six of these, totalling 485 couples, in the meta-analysis. No trials reported the primary outcome of live birth. The evidence was of very low-quality. The main limitations were (unclear) risk of bias, signs of imprecision and inconsistency in results among studies and the small number of studies/participants included.Swim-up versus gradient technique Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) for swim-up versus a gradient technique (odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.35; I² = 71%; 4 RCTs, 370 participants; very low-quality evidence). The results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy after the use of a gradient technique is assumed to be 24%, the chance of pregnancy after using the swim-up technique is between 14% and 30%. We are uncertain whether there was a real difference between ongoing pregnancy rates per couple (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; heterogeneity not applicable; 1 RCT, 223 participants; very low-quality evidence). Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between multiple pregnancy rates (MPR) per couple comparing a swim-up versus gradient technique (MPR per couple 0% versus 0%; 1 RCT, 25 participants; very low-quality of evidence). Considering the quality of evidence, we are also uncertain whether there was a difference between miscarriage rates (MR) per couple comparing a swim-up versus gradient technique (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.59; I² = 44%; 3 RCTs, 330 participants; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on ectopic pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities or infection rate.Swim-up versus wash techniqueConsidering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rates after a swim-up technique versus wash and centrifugation (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.13; I² = 55%; 2 RCTs, 78 participants; very low-quality evidence). The results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy after the use of a wash technique is assumed to be 38%, the chance of pregnancy after using the swim-up technique is between 9% and 41%. Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between multiple pregnancy rates between swim-up technique versus wash technique (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.02 to 13.28; heterogeneity not applicable; 1 RCT, 26 participants; very low-quality evidence). Miscarriage rate was only reported by one study: no miscarriages were reported in either treatment arm. No studies reported on ongoing pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities or infection rate.Gradient versus wash techniqueConsidering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rates after a gradient versus wash and centrifugation technique (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.58 to 5.46; I² = 52%; 2 RCTs, 94 participants; very low-quality evidence). The results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy after the use of a wash technique is assumed to be 13%, the chance of pregnancy after using the gradient technique is between 8% and 46%. Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between multiple pregnancy rates per couple between the treatment groups (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.83; very low-quality evidence). Considering the quality of evidence, we are also uncertain whether there was a difference between miscarriage rates per couple between the treatment groups (OR 6.11, 95% CI 0.27 to 138.45; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on ongoing pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities or infection rate. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to recommend any specific semen preparation technique: swim-up versus gradient versus wash and centrifugation technique. No studies reported on live birth rates. Considering the quality of evidence (very low), we are uncertain whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rates, ongoing pregnancy rates, multiple pregnancy rates or miscarriage rates per couple) between the three sperm preparation techniques. Further randomised trials are warranted that report live birth data.
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.