Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35128437›Full record

ArticleReproduction & fertility2021

IVF or ICSI for fertility preservation?

Bhorika Aggarwal, Amanda L Evans, Howard Ryan, Sarah J Martins da Silva

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproduction & fertility, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bhorika AggarwalReproductive Medicine Research Group, School of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Amanda L EvansHuman Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), London, UK.
Howard RyanHuman Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), London, UK.
Sarah J Martins da SilvaReproductive Medicine Research Group, School of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority · GBNinewells Hospital · GBUniversity of Dundee · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In IVF, eggs and sperm are added together for fertilisation to occur whereas ICSI involves injecting a single sperm into each egg. ICSI is very effective where sperm count or swimming is poor (male infertility) but is slightly riskier than IVF in terms of health problems in children, although these risks are small. However, the risk of no eggs fertilising is higher for IVF compared to ICSI and couples undertaking fertility preservation, for example, before cancer treatment, usually only have time for one attempt. Using fertility preservation treatment cycle data reported to Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), this study shows that ICSI results in higher number of fertilised eggs and embryos for storage or treatment compared to IVF. However, 19% of eggs are not used in ICSI treatment, so IVF appears to be better overall. Clinics should choose IVF or ICSI for fertility preservation depending on sperm characteristics rather than using ICSI for all.

Indexed as

Fertility PreservationInfertility, MaleChildFertilization in VitroHumansMaleSemenSperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic

Identifiers

PMID35128437
PMCPMC8812449
OpenAlexW3131771311

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.