ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
The clinical value of short-term insemination: a retrospective analysis of 3496 patients.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. 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.
- Effect of early rescue ICSI in multiple cycles of couples with successful fertilization in the initial cycle of conventional IVF.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe safety and effectiveness of short-term insemination remain a subject of controversy. This study aims to investigate the impact of short-term insemination on both embryo quality and pregnancy outcomes and whether it is necessary to apply short-term insemination to all patients underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF).
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 3,496 patients from two centers over the period January 2016 to December 2022. Of these, 1307 patients underwent IVF, 1656 patients were treated with short-term IVF, 166 patients received early rescue intracytoplasmic sperm injection (R-ICSI) and 367 patients were treated with ICSI. The clinical and neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe rate of high-quality embryos was significantly lower in the short-term IVF group compared to the routine IVF group (59.89% vs. 68.16%) (P = 0.000), the rate of blastocyst formation was significantly lower in the short-term IVF group compared to the routine IVF group (44.99% vs. 61.34%) (P = 0.000). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes or neonatal outcomes between the two groups, irrespective of whether fresh or frozen embryos were used (both P > 0.05). The incidence of ≥ 3PN demonstrated no significant difference between the early R-ICSI and ICSI groups (1.04% vs. 0.66%) (P = 0.114), furthermore, the clinical outcomes were similar in both groups, for both fresh and frozen embryos (both P > 0.05).
conclusionsFor patients with primary fertility, short-term IVF combined with early R-ICSI can effectively prevent potential low fertilization or fertilization failure, reduce the risk of patients with no transferable embryo, avoid the waste of resources and had no adverse effects on neonatal outcomes. However, short-term IVF reduced the oocytes utilization rate in one single oocyte pick-up cycle, for patients with no risk factors for fertilization failure, the overnight fertilization is still one of the most important ways of insemination worthy of affirmation.
trial registrationNA.
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.