ArticleFertility and sterility2022
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection vs. conventional in vitro fertilization in patients with non-male factor infertility.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intracytoplasmic sperm injection for non-male factor infertility does not improve cumulative live birth rate: a Canadian assisted reproductive technologies registry (CARTR Plus) descriptive study.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Comparison of the outcomes of patients with non-male factor infertility and poor ovarian response undergoing in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Insemination methods for embryos transferred in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles do not impact reproductive outcomes in couples with non-male factor infertility.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Non-Male Factor Only-ICSI Can Overcome Oocyte Factor in PCOS Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in vitro insemination in couples with non-male infertility factor in the 'real-world' setting: analysis of the HFEA registry.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- Secretomes from Conventional Insemination and Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection Derived Embryos Differentially Modulate Endometrial Cells In Vitro.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparisons of conventional in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in women with thyroid autoimmunity and non-male factor infertility, a propensity score matching analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Should ICSI be implemented on patients with poor-quality embryos in the previous IVF cycle?Heliyon · 2023Article
- Elucidating the PGT-A paradox: marginalising the detriment relegates the benefit.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
- Differences in ICSI utilization rates among states with insurance mandates for ART coverage.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) and cost effectiveness of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and conventional in vitro fertilization (cIVF) for non-male factor infertility.
designA retrospective cohort study.
settingSociety for Assisted Reproductive Technology clinics. PATIENT(S): A total of 46,967 patients with non-male factor infertility with the first autologous oocyte retrieval cycle between January 2014 and December 2015. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcomes were CLBR, defined as up to 1 live birth from an autologous retrieval cycle between 2014 and 2015, and linked fresh and frozen embryo transfers through 2016. The secondary outcomes included miscarriage rate, 2 pronuclei per oocyte retrieved, and the total number of transferred and frozen embryos. Analyses were performed on subsamples with and without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). A cost analysis was performed to determine the costs accrued by ICSI. RESULT(S): Among cycles without PGT-A in patients with non-male factor infertility, the CLBR was 60.9% for ICSI cycles vs. 64.3% for cIVF cycles, a difference that was not significantly different after adjustment for covariates (adjusted risk ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.00). With PGT-A, no difference in CLBR was found between ICSI and cIVF cases after adjustment (64.7% vs. 69.0%, respectively; adjusted risk ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.01). The patients were charged an estimated additional amount of $37,476,000 for ICSI without genetic testing and an additional amount of $7,213,500 for ICSI with PGT-A over 2 years by Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology clinics. CONCLUSION(S): In patients with non-male factor infertility, ICSI did not improve CLBR. Given the additional cost and the lack of CLBR benefit, our data show that the routine use of ICSI in patients with non-male factor infertility is not warranted.
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.