ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2022
Embryologic outcomes among patients using a microfluidics chip compared to density gradient centrifugation to process sperm: a paired analysis.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Review
- Andrology laboratory techniques for micro-TESE/IVF/ICSI: a narrative review.Asian journal of andrology · 2025Review
- Embryology outcomes of a device-based sperm separation technique compared to density gradient centrifugation using thawed spermatozoa-a sibling donor oocyte study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Sperm Preparation with Microfluidic Sperm Sorting Chip May Improve Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Outcomes Compared to Density Gradient Centrifugation.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate embryologic outcomes among paired IVF cycles in which a microfluidics chip was utilized compared to density gradient centrifugation for sperm processing.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of 88 paired IVF cycles from patients aged 18-44 years at a university-affiliated IVF center. Fresh cycles from patients undergoing ICSI with sperm processed by a microfluidics chamber (microfluidics cycles) were compared to the same patients' previous ICSI cycles in which sperm was processed via density gradient centrifugation (control cycles). The primary outcome was the high-quality blastulation rate.
resultsHigh-quality blastulation rate per oocyte retrieved was significantly higher in the microfluidics group compared to the control group (21.1% versus 14.5%, p < 0.01) as was the blastulation rate per 2PN (42.7% versus 30.8%, p < 0.01). Fertilization rates were significantly higher in the microfluidics group. The euploidy rate per oocyte retrieved was significantly higher in the microfluidics group compared with the control group (8.5% versus 4.3%, p = 0.04), while the euploidy rate per embryo biopsied was comparable (32.6% versus 21.8%, p = 0.09). In patients with male factor infertility, the high-quality blastulation rate was similar between the control and microfluidics cycles. There was a significantly higher blastulation rate among microfluidics cycles in patients without a diagnosis of male factor infertility (p < 0.01).
conclusionIn this study, several embryologic outcomes, including fertilization rate, high-quality blastulation rate, and euploidy rate, were significantly higher in the microfluidics group compared to the control group. Microfluidics sperm processing may be a way to improve embryologic 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.