ArticleScientific reports2020
Sperm enrichment from poor semen samples by double density gradient centrifugation in combination with swim-up for IVF cycles.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cryopreservation of single-sperm from semen and testicular samples: a 5-year monocentric experience in hundreds of patients.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Article
- Evaluating the potential for sperm DNA fragmentation testing to guide the use of ICSI for couples with non-severe male infertility.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- Non-human primates as a translational model for the study of male reproductive health.Nature reviews. Urology · 2025Review
- Integrating Lifestyle Modifications and Advanced Sperm Separation Technology: A Case Study on Overcoming Male Infertility Using the LensHooke CA0 Device.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Embryo selection at the cleavage stage using Raman spectroscopy of day 3 culture medium and machine learning: a preliminary study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Sperm DNA fragmentation index affect pregnancy outcomes and offspring safety in assisted reproductive technology.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Live motile sperm sorting device for enhanced sperm-fertilization competency: comparative analysis with density-gradient centrifugation and microfluidic sperm sorting.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- New insights into semen separation techniques in buffaloes.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Review
- Game-Changing Approaches in Sperm Sex-Sorting: Microfluidics and Nanotechnology.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Review
- AMH has no role in predicting oocyte quality in women with advanced age undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Migration-Gravity Sedimentation: An Effective Approach for Reducing Sperm DNA Fragmentation With Comparable Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Outcomes Compared to Density Gradient Centrifugation.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sperm preparation in IVF cycles using density gradient centrifugation (DGC) in combination with swim-up (SU) has been widely adopted in reproductive centres worldwide. It is a fact that the sperm recovery rate following one DGC from poor semen samples (showing liquefaction defects/containing too many unresolvable clots or rare sperm) is relatively low. Our results showed that double DGC (DDGC) is effective at increasing the sperm recovery rate from poor semen samples. However, DDGC may increase the mechanical stress of sperm, thereby potentially impairing embryo development. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the safety of using sperm prepared by DDGC/SU for IVF cycles. In this study, we retrospectively analysed the data generated from a total of 529 IVF cycles (from June 2017 to June 2018), and these IVF cycles contributed 622 transfer cycles (from June 2017 to December 2018) in Changzhou Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital. Of them, 306 IVF cycles and the related 355 transfer cycles (normal semen samples prepared by DGC/SU) were set as the normal group, while 223 IVF cycles and the related 267 transfer cycles (poor semen prepared by DDGC/SU) were set as the observation group. The main outcome measures, including the normal fertilization rate, top D3 embryo formation rate, blastocyte formation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate, birth weight and duration of pregnancy, were compared between the two groups. Compared to semen in the DGC/SU group, semen in the DDGC/SU group showed increased levels of the DNA fragmentation index (DFI) and reduced sperm concentration, percentage of progressive motility (PR) sperm, and percentage of normal morphology sperm. The indicators reflecting in vitro embryo development and clinical outcomes were similar in the DGC/SU group and DDGC/SU group, including the normal fertilization rate, top D3 embryo formation rate, blastocyte formation rate, pregnancy rate, implantation rate, spontaneous abortion rate, live birth rate, birth weight and duration of pregnancy. Furthermore, we found that the 1PN zygote formation rate was significantly lower in the DDGC/SU group than that in the DGC/SU group. We concluded that oocytes fertilized by sperm from poor semen samples separated by DDGC/SU achieved the same outcomes as oocytes fertilized by sperm from normal semen separated by DGC/SU, suggesting that DDGC/SU is an effective and safe method of sperm enrichment for poor semen samples in IVF. The main contribution of the present study is the verification of the effectiveness of DDGC/SU in improving sperm recovery from poor semen samples and the safety of using sperm prepared by DDGC/SU for IVF.
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.