Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37983267›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

Does microfluidic sperm selection improve clinical pregnancy and miscarriage outcomes in assisted reproductive treatments? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Janaina Ferreira Aderaldo, Karina da Silva Maranhão, Daniel Carlos Ferreira Lanza

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Janaina Ferreira AderaldoJanuário Cicco Maternity School of Brazilian Company of Hospital Services (MEJC/UFRN-Ebserh), Natal, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3618-297X
Karina da Silva MaranhãoIndependent Researcher, Brazil.
Daniel Carlos Ferreira LanzaBiochemistry Department, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte-UFRN, Natal, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1341-4814
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe microfluidic sperm selection (MFSS) device has emerged as a promising adjunct in assisted reproduction treatments (ART). It employs mechanisms of biomimicry based on the microanatomy of the female reproductive tract through strategies like chemotaxis and rheotaxis. Numerous studies assert improvements in ART outcomes with the use of MFSS, often attributed to the theoretical reduction in sperm DNA damage compared to other techniques. However, these attributed benefits lack validation through large-scale clinical trials, and there is no significant evidence of enhanced assisted reproductive treatments (ART) outcomes.

objectiveTo evaluate whether the utilization of MFSS enhances clinical pregnancy results and abortion outcomes in couples undergoing ART compared to standard sperm selection techniques for Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI). We also assessed laboratory outcomes as a supplementary analysis. SEARCH

methodsWe conducted searches across databases including PubMed, NIH, LILACS, CENTRAL, Crossref, Scopus, and OpenAlex. A total of 1,255 records were identified. From these, 284 duplicate records were eliminated, and an additional 895 records were excluded due to their association with patent applications, diagnostic tests, forensic analyses, or irrelevance to the research focus. Among the initially eligible 76 studies, 63 were excluded, encompassing abstracts, studies lacking adequate control groups, and ongoing clinical trials. Ultimately, 13 studies were selected for inclusion in the ensuing meta-analysis.

resultsRegarding clinical pregnancy, we assessed a total of 868 instances of clinical pregnancies out of 1,646 embryo transfers. Regarding miscarriage, we examined 95 cases of pregnancy loss among the 598 confirmed clinical pregnancies in these studies.

conclusionThe utilization of MFSS demonstrates marginal positive outcomes compared to standard sperm selection techniques, without statistical significance in any of the analyses. BROADER IMPLICATIONS: This study conducted the first meta-analysis to evaluate clinical pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates, and laboratory results associated with the use of MFSS compared to standard sperm selection techniques. We have also listed potentially eligible studies for future inclusion. It's important to emphasize the need for multicenter studies with standardized parameters to attain a more robust clarification of this issue.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousFemaleHumansLive BirthMaleMicrofluidicsPregnancyPregnancy RateSemenSpermatozoaSperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic

Identifiers

PMID37983267
PMCPMC10659219
OpenAlexW4388822328

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.