ReviewOpen research Europe2023
Lab-on-chip (LoC) application for quality sperm selection: An undelivered promise?
Review in Open research Europe, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
Quality sperm selection is essential to ensure the effectiveness of assisted reproductive techniques (ART). However, the methods employed for sperm selection in ART often yield suboptimal outcomes, contributing to lower success rates. In recent years, microfluidic devices have emerged as a promising avenue for investigating the natural swimming behavior of spermatozoa and developing innovative approaches for quality sperm selection. Despite their potential, the commercial translation of microfluidic-based technologies has remained limited. This comprehensive review aims to critically evaluate the inherent potential of lab-on-chip technology in unraveling sophisticated mechanisms encompassing rheotaxis, thermotaxis, and chemotaxis. By reviewing the current state-of-the-art associated with microfluidic engineering and the swimming of spermatozoa, the goal is to shed light on the multifaceted factors that have impeded the broader commercialization of these cutting-edge technologies and recommend a commercial that can surmount the prevailing constraints. Furthermore, this scholarly exploration seeks to enlighten and actively engage reproductive clinicians in the profound potential and implications of microfluidic methodologies within the context of human infertility.
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.