ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
The Impact of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Non-Male Factor Infertility-A Critical Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intracytoplasmic sperm injection utilization relative to reported male factor infertility prevalence and its association with preimplantation genetic testing use: a national clinic-level study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Use of a sperm FcR assay in intracytoplasmic sperm injection improves day 5 good quality blastocyst yield.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Defining associated factors for total fertilization failure and embryo development arrest in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Unveiling clinic variation in utilization of ICSI, PGT, and blastocyst transfer: a comprehensive study using the SART database (2014-2020).Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Fertility anxiety vs. anti-fertility anxiety: exploring Chinese women's conflicting attitudes toward childbearing through social media.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- 'Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) paradox' and 'andrological ignorance': AI in the era of fourth industrial revolution to navigate the blind spots.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2024Article
- Comparison of Treatment Outcomes among Sibling Oocytes Using Different Culture Systems-Conventional IVF versus INVOcell Device-And Evaluation of INVOcell User Satisfaction: The INVOcIVF Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Impact of in vitro fertilization state mandates for third party insurance coverage in the United States: a review and critical assessment.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2022Review
- De novo mutations in children born after medical assisted reproduction.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022Observational
- Differences in ICSI utilization rates among states with insurance mandates for ART coverage.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was originally designed to overcome barriers due to male factor infertility. However, a surveillance study found that ICSI use in non-male factor infertility increased from 15.4% to 66.9% between 1996 and 2012. Numerous studies have investigated fertilization rate, total fertilization failure, and live birth rate per cycle (LBR), comparing the use of ICSI versus conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) for non-male factor infertility. The overwhelming conclusion shows no increase in fertilization rate or LBR per cycle with the use of ICSI for non-male factor infertility. The overuse of ICSI is likely related to the desire to avoid a higher rate of total fertilization failure in IVF. However, data supporting the benefit of using ICSI for non-male factor infertility is lacking, and 33 couples would need to be treated with ICSI unnecessarily to avoid one case of total fertilization failure. Such practice increases the cost to the patient, increases the burden on embryologist's time, and is a misapplication of resources. Additionally, there remains conflicting data regarding the safety of offspring conceived by ICSI and potential damage to the oocyte. Thus, the use of ICSI should be limited to those with male factor infertility or a history of total fertilization factor infertility due to uncertainties of potential adverse impact and lack of proven benefit in non-male factor infertility.
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.