ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2024
Clinical effectiveness of spindle-view intracytoplasmic sperm injection compared to conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with poor ovarian response and previous implantation failure.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dual effects of anti-Müllerian hormone on ovarian response and fertilization in assisted reproductive technology cycles: a retrospective cohort study.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2026Article
- Influence of endometriosis on the outcomes of assisted reproductive technology in poor ovarian responders with previous implantation failures.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2026Article
- Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to determine the clinical advantage of spindle-view intracytoplasmic sperm injection (SVICSI; a novel technology) over conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection (cICSI) in patients with poor ovarian response (POR) and previous implantation failure.
methodsThe study included 37 patients who underwent SVICSI followed by fresh embryo transfer (FET) at a single fertility clinic from January to December 2022, 58 patients who underwent cICSI followed by FET at the same fertility clinic from January to December 2021 as a control group. All study participants met the Bologna criteria for POR and had at least three or more previous failed embryo transfers.
resultsThe number of blastocyst transfers was significantly higher in the SVICSI group than in the cICSI group. A good-quality cleavage embryo rate, blastocyst rate, and good-quality blastocyst rate were also significantly higher in the SVICSI group than in the cICSI group. There were no significant differences in the rates of fertilization, implantation, clinical pregnancy, or clinical abortion between the two groups.
conclusionIn patients with POR, those who underwent SVICSI appeared to have better embryos than those who underwent cICSI. However, whether SVICSI improved clinical outcomes such as implantation and pregnancy rates cannot be proven.
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.