ReviewCureus2022
A Review of the Impact of Microfluidics Technology on Sperm Selection Technique.
Review in Cureus, 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Separation of sperm based on rheotaxis mechanism using a microfluidic device.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2026Article
- Microfluidics for in vitro fertilization: from science to clinical validation.Human reproduction update · 2026Review
- Article
- Functional parameters of spermatozoa obtained by a new selection device.FEBS open bio · 2025Article
- FERTILITY CARE IN LOW- AND MIDDLE- INCOME COUNTRIES: The future use of AI to improve accessibility of assisted reproductive technology in low- and middle-income countries.Reproduction & fertility · 2025Review
- Andrology laboratory techniques for micro-TESE/IVF/ICSI: a narrative review.Asian journal of andrology · 2025Review
- Can Microfluidics Improve Sperm Quality? A Prospective Functional Study.Biomedicines · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sperm sorting procedures depend on centrifugation processes. These processes produce oxidative stress and cell damage that are undesirable for in-vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) outcomes because they affect fertilization and implantation chances. The microfluidic sperm selection technique has shown promise in this area. It can create a platform for isolating and manipulating good-quality sperm cells using diverse triggers such as mechanical factors, chemical agents, and temperature gradients. Furthermore, microfluidic platforms can direct sperm cells for IVF or sperm sorting by utilizing an approach that is passive or active. In this review, we explain the use of microfluidics technologies for sorting and arranging sperm cells for different purposes. We also discuss the use of microfluidics technology in selecting and assessing sperm parameters and how it affects male infertility.
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.