Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37325242›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2023

The impact of cryopreserved sperm on intrauterine insemination outcomes: is frozen as good as fresh?

Panagiotis Cherouveim, Stylianos Vagios, Karissa Hammer, Victoria Fitz, Victoria S Jiang, Irene Dimitriadis, Caitlin R Sacha, Kaitlyn E James, Charles L Bormann, Irene Souter

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Fresh versus frozen micro-TESE sperm and outcomes.Asian journal of andrology · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Panagiotis CherouveimMassachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Stylianos VagiosDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.
Karissa HammerMassachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Victoria FitzMassachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Victoria S JiangMassachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Irene DimitriadisMassachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Caitlin R SachaDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States.
Kaitlyn E JamesDeborah Kelly Center for Outcomes Research, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Charles L BormannMassachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Irene SouterMassachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Frozen sperm utilization might negatively impact cycle outcomes in animals, implicating cryopreservation-induced sperm damage. However, Methods: This study is a retrospective review of 5,335 IUI [± ovarian stimulation (OS)] cycles from a large academic fertility center. Cycles were stratified based on the utilization of frozen ( Results: Overall, HCG positivity and CP were lower in the Conclusion: Overall, clinical outcomes did not differ significantly between frozen and fresh sperm IUI cycles, although specific subgroups might benefit from fresh sperm utilization.

Indexed as

cryopreservationfreshfrozenintrauterine inseminationoutcomessperm

Identifiers

PMID37325242
PMCPMC10264626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.