ArticleClinical and experimental reproductive medicine2023
Physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection does not improve the quality of embryos: A cross-sectional investigation on sibling oocytes.
Article in Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Narrative Review on the Sperm Selection Methods in Assisted Reproductive Technology: Out with the New, the Old Is Better?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Does Physiological Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Improve Outcome in Men with Abnormal Semen Parameters: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of human reproductive sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection (PICSI) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in terms of the fertilization rate and embryo quality using sibling oocyte cycles.
methodsThis prospective, cross-sectional study collected data from 76 couples who underwent their first cycle at the Hue Center for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Vietnam, between May 2019 and November 2021. The inclusion criteria were cycles with at least eight oocytes and a sperm concentration of 5×106/mL. Sperm parameters, sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), fertilization, and the quality of cleavage-stage embryos on day 2 and blastocysts on day 5 were examined.
resultsFrom 76 ICSI cycles, 1,196 metaphase II (MII) oocytes were retrieved, half of which were randomly allocated to either the PICSI (n=592) or ICSI (n=604) treatment group. The results showed no significant difference between the two groups in terms of fertilization (72.80% vs. 75.33%, p=0.32), day 2 cleavage rate (95.13% vs. 96.04%, p=0.51), blastulation rate (52.68% vs. 57.89%), and high-quality blastocyst rate (26.10% vs. 31.13%, p=0.13). However, in cases where SDF was low, 59 cycles consisting of 913 MII oocytes produced a considerably higher blastulation rate with PICSI than with ICSI (50.49% vs. 35.65%, p=0.00). There were no significant differences between the pregnancy outcomes of the PICSI and ICSI embryo groups following embryo transfer.
conclusionUsing variable sperm quality provided no benefit for PICSI versus ICSI in terms of embryo outcomes. When SDF is low, PICSI appears to be able to produce more blastocysts.
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.