ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2020
Does omitting teratospermia as a selection criterion for ICSI change pregnancy rates?
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThere is controversy whether teratospermia is associated with poorer IVF outcomes and if ICSI may overcome this deficit. The debate likely lies in study heterogeneity, poor adjustment for confounders, and inter-observer variation in sperm morphology assessment. Given the current literature, a shift in practice was implemented at our center in February 2017, whereby teratospermia was no longer a criterion for ICSI. We hypothesized that, despite decreasing ICSI rates, we would see no change in ART outcomes.
methodsA retrospective study was performed including 1821 couples undergoing IVF/ICSI at a single center from January 2016 to December 2018, divided into cohorts before and after the practice change. The primary outcome of clinical pregnancy and secondary outcomes of fertilization, fertilization failure, good quality blastocyst formation, embryo utilization, positive hCG, and miscarriage rates was compared, adjusting for potential confounders. Subgroup analysis was performed evaluating teratospermia as the only reason for a male factor infertility diagnosis.
resultsDespite a decrease in ICSI rate of 30.3%, we found no significant difference in clinical intrauterine pregnancy rate, with an adjusted relative risk of 0.93 (0.81, 1.07, P = 0.3008). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes after multivariate adjustment. Subgroup analysis for those with male factor infertility due to teratospermia showed no difference in outcomes.
conclusionThis study concurs with the recent data suggesting that employing ICSI solely for teratospermia is unnecessary. This may allow clinics to decrease ICSI rates without sacrificing success rates, leading to lower cost and risk associated with treatment.
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.