ArticleClinical and experimental reproductive medicine2024
Comparative analysis of conventional in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome, tubal factor infertility, and unexplained infertility whose partners exhibit normal semen parameters: A retrospective study of sibling oocytes.
Article in Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of ovarian reserve markers on oocyte maturity and embryological outcomes in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: A retrospective cohort study.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2026Article
- Chemotherapy-Induced Infertility: Mechanisms, Risk Factors, and Fertility Preservation Strategies in Cancer Patients.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the outcomes of conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), tubal factor (TF) infertility, and unexplained infertility whose partners had normal semen parameters.
methodsThis retrospective study included 360 couples diagnosed with infertility involving PCOS (n=157), unexplained infertility (n=140), and TF infertility (n=63). Sibling oocytes were randomly assigned to undergo ICSI or conventional IVF insemination. The fertilization rate and embryo morphology were evaluated as outcomes.
resultsRetrieved cumulus-oocyte complexes from patients with PCOS (2,974), unexplained infertility (1,843), and TF infertility (844) were split and inseminated by conventional IVF and ICSI respectively. In comparison to the ICSI method, the conventional IVF approach was linked to a significantly higher fertilization rate in groups with PCOS (68.81% vs. 77.49%), unexplained infertility (67.62% vs. 78.84%), and TF issues (69.23% vs. 78.63%) (p<0.05). The proportion of embryos with grade A produced by the conventional IVF method was significantly higher than that produced using the ICSI method in the PCOS and unexplained infertility groups (p<0.05). Additionally, the percentage of grade B embryos produced with the ICSI method was significantly higher than that produced with the conventional IVF method in PCOS patients (p=0.002).
conclusionOur results indicated that the conventional IVF method was associated with higher zygote production and a higher proportion of grade A embryos when all infertile groups were evaluated together. Thus, ICSI is not suggested for patients with these causes of infertility if their partner has normal semen parameters.
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.