SynthesisPloS one2023
Does microfluidic sperm selection improve clinical pregnancy and miscarriage outcomes in assisted reproductive treatments? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Efficacy of Microfluidics and Density Gradient Centrifugation for Sperm Preparation in IVF: A Randomized Controlled Trial.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2026Trial
- Semen Quality and DNA Fragmentation After Limited Testicular Sperm Extraction in Non-Azoospermic Men With ART Failure: A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Recent advances in sex-specific reproductive microphysiological systems for the systematic evaluation of assisted reproductive technology.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Comparison of Swim-Up and Microfluidic Sperm Sorting Methods in Selection of Sperm for Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Teratozoospermia and Embryo Development: The Significance of Sperm Selection in In Vitro Fertilization Success.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Microfluidic Sorting Can Be Applied for Assisted Reproduction Sperm Selection in Different Cases of Semen Abnormalities.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Sperm Separation and Selection Techniques to Mitigate Sperm DNA Damage.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- 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
- Bioengineering Approaches for Male Infertility: From Microenvironmental Regeneration to in vitro Fertilization.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Article
- A narrative review of sperm selection technology for assisted reproduction techniques.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.