ReviewReproductive medicine and biology
How to improve the clinical outcome of round spermatid injection (ROSI) into the oocyte: Correction of epigenetic abnormalities.
Review in Reproductive medicine and biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Round Spermatid Injection (ROSI) as a Last Resort in High-Risk Azoospermia: Chain of Outcome Metrics and Real-World Safety Signals.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Intracytoplasmic spermatid injection in non-obstructive azoospermia: a review of current evidence and future directions.Asian journal of andrology · 2026Review
- The spermatozoon neck role in infertility and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Clinical outcomes of round spermatid injection vs intracytoplasmic sperm injection: The role of hormonal pretreatment for nonobstructive azoospermia.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2025Article
- Spermatocytes have the capacity to segregate chromosomes despite centriole duplication failure.EMBO reports · 2024Article
- A Narrative Review Discussing Vasectomy-Related Impact upon the Status of Oxidative Stress and Inflammation Biomarkers and Semen Microbiota.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Development, Live Birth and Fertility in Mouse Oocytes Penetrated by Spermatids Exposed to the HDAC Inhibitor Scriptaid.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
- How to improve the clinical outcome of round spermatid injection (ROSI) into the oocyte: Correction of epigenetic abnormalities.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: First successful human round spermatid injection (ROSI) was conducted by Tesarik et al. in 1996 for the sole treatment of nonobstructive azoospermic men whose most advanced spermatogenic cells were elongating round spermatids. Nine offsprings from ROSI were reported between 1996 and 2000. No successful deliveries were reported for 15 years after that. Tanaka et al. reported 90 babies born after ROSI and their follow-up studies in 2015 and 2018 showed no significant differences in comparison with those born after natural conception in terms of physical and cognitive abilities. However, clinical outcomes remain low. Method: Clinical and laboratory data of successful cases in the precursor ROSI groups and those of Tanaka et al. were reviewed. Results: Differences were found between the two groups in terms of identification of characteristics of round spermatid and oocyte activation. Additionally, epigenetic abnormalities were identified as underlying causes for poor ROSI results, besides correct identification of round spermatid and adequate oocyte activation. Correction of epigenetic errors could lead to optimal embryonic development. Conclusion: Correction of epigenetic abnormalities has a probability to improve the clinical outcome of ROSI.
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.