ArticleJournal of reproduction & infertility
Comparison of In-House Microfluidic Device and Centrifuge-Based Method Efficacy in Sperm Preparation for Assisted Reproductive Technology.
Article in Journal of reproduction & infertility. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Artificial intelligence model for the assessment of unstained live sperm morphology.Reproduction & fertility · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sperm DNA fragmentation can affect reproductive outcomes in assisted reproductive techniques (ART), and it is a concern in density gradient centrifugation (DGC). By contrast, microfluidic approaches allow the selection of highly motile sperm with low DNA fragmentation index (DFI). The purpose of current study, was to compare the efficacy of a microfluidic device designed in-house in comparison with DGC. Methods: Nineteen healthy men with normal semen profiles were included in the study. Semen samples were individually aliquoted for three sperm preparation analyses (crude and processed with to either DGC or the microfluidic method). Sperm parameters of the samples were evaluated along with DNA fragmentation using the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick-end labeling (TUNEL) method. Results: Sperm processed using the microfluidic method showed a significantly lower DFI than those obtained using DGC and in crude semen, with DFI of 1.1%, 3.5%, and 4.9%, respectively. Although the microfluidic method yielded significantly lower sperm concentrations than DGC, no significant differences were observed in total motility, progressive motility, curvilinear velocity, straight-line velocity, or normal morphology. Conclusion: Using the in-house microfluidic device, sperm with lower DFI was effectively isolated when compared with DGC. The motility and normal morphology rates were comparable among the samples.
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.