ArticleJournal of human reproductive sciences
Perinatal Outcomes Using Ejaculate versus Surgical Sperm Retrieval in Patients Undergoing Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection for Male Infertility - A Retrospective Analysis of 628 Cycles.
Article in Journal of human reproductive sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMen with azoospermia undergoing a surgical sperm retrieval are anxious about the well-being of the baby. It is therefore important to study the perinatal outcomes in this group compared to the ejaculate sample group.
aimThe aim of the study was to compare the perinatal outcomes between ejaculate and surgical sperm retrieval (SSR) groups in couples undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection for male factor. STUDY SETTING AND
designThis was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a university-level infertility unit. MATERIALS AND
methodsIt is a retrospective cohort study analysis of 628 assisted reproductive technique (ART) cycles with male factor and combined (male and female) factor infertility over a period of 5 years (January 2011-December 2015). All women who underwent a fresh embryo ART cycle were followed up. The study population included the ejaculate and SSR groups. The perinatal outcomes of these two groups were compared. The congenital anomaly risks among the two groups were also analyzed. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test and Logistic regression.
resultsA total of 628 ART cycles were included in the current study, of which 478 cycles used ejaculate sperm, while SSR was done in 150 cycles. The analysis was restricted to singletons, and the risk of preterm birth was 22.9% in the ejaculate group, 5.9% in the epididymal group, and 12% in the testicular group (epididymal vs. ejaculate odds ratio [OR], 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02-1.66) (testicular vs. ejaculate OR, 0.46; 95% CI: 0.12-1.65). The risk of low birth weight was 23.7% in the ejaculate group, 11.8% in the epididymal group, and 20.0% in the testicular group (epididymal vs. ejaculate OR, 0.42; 95% CI: 0.09-1.9) (testicular vs. ejaculate OR, 0.80; 95% CI: 0.27-2.3). The incidence of congenital anomalies was 7.3% in the ejaculate group, 0 in the epididymal group, and 3.5% in the testicular group (epididymal vs. ejaculate OR, 0.28; 95% CI: 0.01-5.2) (testicular vs. ejaculate OR, 0.63; 95% CI: 0.10-3.7) which was not significantly different.
conclusionThe current study showed no significant differences in the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in the ejaculate group versus the surgically retrieved sperm groups.
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.