ArticleF&S reports2024
Comparing reproductive outcomes between conventional in vitro fertilization and nonindicated intracytoplasmic sperm injection in autologous embryo transfer cycles: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System Study.
Article in F&S reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should I opt for intracytoplasmic sperm injection or should I not: high-tech no matter what?F&S reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare clinical outcomes between nonindicated intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and conventional insemination. Design: Autologous cycles performed from 2014-2017 were identified, excluding frozen oocyte cycles. Outcomes were compared between conventional insemination (in vitro fertilization [IVF]) and nonindiated ICSI and analyzed separately for fresh, frozen-thawed preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) and frozen-thawed non-PGT cycles. Setting: US-based fertility clinics reporting to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Participants: A total of 187,520 patients underwent 318,930 cycles, 57,516 (18.0%) using conventional IVF and 261,414 ICSI (82.0%). Interventions: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, with or without indications (male factor, prior fertilization failure or any PGT [2012 recommendations]/single-gene PGT [2020 recommendations]). Main Outcome Measures: Odds ratios (ORs) for live birth rates and clinical pregnancy rates were calculated after multivariable adjustment for maternal age, body mass index, infertility etiologies, prior IVF births, and number oocytes retrieved. Results: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection was indicated in 151,627 (58.0%) of cycles according to 2012 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee recommendations, and 108,895 (41.7%) according to 2020 recommendations. In multivariable models, nonindicated ICSI among fresh cycles was associated with reduced odds of completing a blastocyst-stage transfer (OR, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.7, 0.75]; Conclusion: Nonindicated ICSI was associated with reduced blastocyst availability in fresh cycles compared with IVF, leading to lower live birth rates. Outcomes from completed transfers were clinically comparable.
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.