ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2022
The use of fresh compared to frozen ejaculated sperm has no impact on fresh embryo transfer cycle reproductive outcomes.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of seminal cryopreservation on embryo kinetics. Image analysis and clinical outcomes.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2026Article
- Global Andrology Forum (GAF) Clinical Guidelines on the Management of Non-obstructive Azoospermia: Bridging the Gap between Controversy and Consensus.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Meeting proceedings: International Society for Fertility Preservation Tokyo, 15-17 November, 2024.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Comparison of fresh testicular sperm aspiration and use of either thawed pre-frozen sperm or oocyte freezing: impact on cumulative live birth rates for couples experiencing ejaculation failure.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
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
purposeTo compare the reproductive outcomes of fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycles utilizing fresh versus frozen ejaculated sperm.
methodsFirst autologous fresh embryo transfer cycles at a single high-volume academic institution between 2013 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. IVF cycles using ejaculated sperm were included, and cycles using donor or surgically retrieved sperm were excluded. Sperm concentration was stratified as ≥ 5 and < 5 million/ml. The primary outcome was live birth, and the secondary outcomes were clinical intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) and miscarriage. A multivariable logistic regression model for the aforementioned outcomes was adjusted a priori for sperm concentration as well as maternal and paternal age.
resultsA total of 6128 couples were included. Of these, 5780 (94.3%) utilized fresh sperm, and 348 (5.7%) frozen sperm. A total of 5716 (93.2%) had sperm concentrations ≥ 5 million/ml and 412 (6.7%) had sperm concentrations < 5 million/ml. On multivariable logistic regression, the use of freshly ejaculated sperm was not associated with significantly different odds of clinical IUP, miscarriage, or live birth when compared to cycles using frozen sperm.
conclusionFor couples conceiving via fresh ET, the use of fresh versus frozen ejaculated sperm is not associated with reproductive outcomes.
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.