ArticlePloS one2024
First-line infertility treatment in normal or subnormal sperm: Interest of a simplified pre-IMSI test.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the field of male infertility, when sperm is normal/subnormal, a few "add-on" routine tests can complete the basic semen examination.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a faster, simplified motile sperm organelle morphology examination (MSOME) technique for selected infertile patients with apparently normal/subnormal sperm and, in their background: failure of two or three intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles, repeatedly fragmented embryos, embryonic development to blastocyst-stage failures, repeated miscarriages, a long period of infertility or 2 or more IVF attempts without pregnancy. Our test results were correlated with IUI, conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe validated an adapted version of the MSOME analysis called the pre-IMSI test (PIT), based on vacuole evaluation alone. 248 infertile patients from our assisted reproductive technology (ART) Center were retrospectively selected and split into three PIT score subgroups (patients with ≤8% (score I), 9 to 15% (score II) and ≥16% normal spermatozoa (score III)) based on the correlation between PIT results and each ART technique outcome. The choice of one or another of these ART techniques had been made according to the usual clinico-biological criteria.
resultsClinical outcomes for each of the three PIT subgroups were compared individually for the different ART techniques. For ICSI, the effect of the PIT score subgroup was significant for clinical pregnancies (p = 0.0054) and presented a trend for live births (p = 0.0614). Miscarriage rates of IVF attempts were statistically different depending on the PIT score (p = 0.0348). Furthermore, the odds ratios of clinical pregnancy rates were significantly different according to PIT score subgroup when comparing ICSI vs. IMSI or IVF vs. ICSI attempts. DISCUSSION: IMSI appears to be recommended when sperm belongs to PIT score I, ICSI when it belongs to PIT score II and IVF or IUI when sperm is of PIT score III quality in selected infertile couples. The lack of statistical power in these PIT subgroups means that we must remain cautious in interpreting results.
conclusionOur results support the interest of this simplified test for certain couples with normal/subnormal sperm to help choose the most efficient ART technique, even as first-line treatment.
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.