Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34723422›Full record

Observational studyAndrology2022

Are sperm parameters able to predict the success of assisted reproductive technology? A retrospective analysis of over 22,000 assisted reproductive technology cycles.

Maria Teresa Villani, Daria Morini, Giorgia Spaggiari, Angela Immacolata Falbo, Beatrice Melli, Giovanni Battista La Sala, Marilina Romeo, Manuela Simoni, Lorenzo Aguzzoli, Daniele Santi

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Andrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Sperm selection for assisted reproductive technology: do we have a winner?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Review
  17. Semen Characteristics and Embryo Outcomes in IVF.Journal of family & reproductive health · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Maria Teresa VillaniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fertility Centre, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Daria MoriniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fertility Centre, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Giorgia SpaggiariDepartment of Medical Specialties, Unit of Endocrinology, Ospedale Civile of Baggiovara, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Modena, Modena, Italy.
Angela Immacolata FalboDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fertility Centre, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Beatrice MelliClinical and Experimental Medicine PhD Program, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Giovanni Battista La SalaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fertility Centre, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Marilina RomeoDepartment of Medical Specialties, Unit of Endocrinology, Ospedale Civile of Baggiovara, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Modena, Modena, Italy.
Manuela SimoniDepartment of Medical Specialties, Unit of Endocrinology, Ospedale Civile of Baggiovara, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Modena, Modena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2133-4304
Lorenzo AguzzoliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fertility Centre, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Daniele SantiDepartment of Medical Specialties, Unit of Endocrinology, Ospedale Civile of Baggiovara, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Modena, Modena, Italy.
Azienda Sanitaria Unità Locale di Reggio Emilia · ITUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia · ITAzienda Unita' Sanitaria Locale Di Modena · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn explosive increase in couples attending assisted reproductive technology has been recently observed, despite an overall success rate of about 20%-30%. Considering the assisted reproductive technology-related economic and psycho-social costs, the improvement of these percentages is extremely relevant. However, in the identification of predictive markers of assisted reproductive technology success, male parameters are largely underestimated so far. STUDY

designRetrospective, observational study.

objectivesTo evaluate whether conventional semen parameters could predict assisted reproductive technology success. MATERIALS AND

methodsAll couples attending a single third-level fertility center from 1992 to 2020 were retrospectively enrolled, collecting all semen and assisted reproductive technology parameters of fresh cycles. Fertilization rate was the primary end-point, representing a parameter immediately dependent on male contribution. Pregnancy and live birth rates were considered in relation to semen variables. Statistical analyses were performed using the parameters obtained according to the World Health Organization manual editions used for semen analysis.

resultsNote that, 22,013 in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles were considered. Overall, fertilization rate was significantly lower in patients with abnormal semen parameters compared to normozoospermic men, irrespective of the World Health Organization manual edition. In the in vitro fertilization setting, both progressive motility (p = 0.012) and motility after capacitation (p = 0.002) significantly predicted the fertilization rate (statistical accuracy = 71.1%). Sperm motilities also predicted pregnancy (p < 0.001) and live birth (p = 0.001) rates. In intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles, sperm morphology predicted fertilization rate (p = 0.001, statistical accuracy = 90.3%). Sperm morphology significantly predicted both pregnancy (p < 0.001) and live birth (p < 0.001) rates and a cut-off of 5.5% was identified as a threshold to predict clinical pregnancy (area under the curve = 0.811, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Interestingly, sperm motility plays a role in predicting in vitro fertilization success, while sperm morphology is the relevant parameter in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. These parameters may be considered reliable tools to measure the male role on ART outcomes, potentially impacting the clinical management of infertile couples.

Indexed as

AdultBirth RateFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansInfertility, MaleLive BirthMalePredictive Value of TestsPregnancyPregnancy RateReproductive Techniques, AssistedRetrospective StudiesSemen AnalysisSpermatozoaSperm Injections, Intracytoplasmicassisted reproductionfertilization ratemale infertilitysperm morphologysperm motility

Identifiers

PMID34723422
PMCPMC9298690
OpenAlexW3208498782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.