ArticleInternational journal of fertility & sterility2022
MACS-DGC versus DGC Sperm Wash Procedure: Comparing Clinical Outcomes in Couples with Male Factor Infertility Undergoing ICSI: A Clinical Trial Study.
Article in International journal of fertility & sterility, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical outcome using the Q300™ device in a reproductive laboratory environment: an open-label, non-controlled and non-randomized study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Trial
- Sperm selection for assisted reproductive technology: do we have a winner?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Review
- Functional parameters of spermatozoa obtained by a new selection device.FEBS open bio · 2025Article
- A Narrative Review on the Sperm Selection Methods in Assisted Reproductive Technology: Out with the New, the Old Is Better?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Impact of Microfluidic Sperm Sorting on Embryonic Euploidy in Infertile Patients with Sperm DNA Damage: A Retrospective Study.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2024Article
- Advanced Sperm Selection Techniques for Assisted Reproduction.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
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
background: Implementation of sperm preparation techniques based on cellular and molecular characteristics can improve the clinical outcomes of couples with male factor infertility. These methods attempt to select better sperm compared to classical methods of preparation such as swim-up and density gradient centrifugation (DGC). In this view, the aim of this study was the comparison of clinical outcomes of magnetic-activated cell separation (MACS) followed by DGC or DGC alone in infertile men undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). MATERIALS AND
methodsFor this prospective single parallel blind clinical trial study, 206 infertile couples with male factor infertility and having abnormal sperm morphology higher than 96% were included. 106 and 100 couples were considered for the study (MACS-DGC) and control group (DGC), respectively. Clinical outcomes of ICSI; fertilization, embryo quality, and implantation, pregnancy rates were compared between two groups.
resultsMean of fertilization (80.19 ± 1.88 vs. 75.63 ± 2.06, P=0.1), top embryo quality on the day 3 (30.22 ± 3.59 vs. 17.96 ± 2.9, P=0.009), clinical pregnancy (30.76% vs. 22.22%, P=0.19), and implantation rate (18.12% vs. 10.42%, P=0.04) were higher in the study group compared to the control group.
conclusionSperm preparation by MACS followed by DGC in teratozoospermic men could improve the clinical outcomes after ICSI (Registration number: IRCT201610317223N8).
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.