ArticleCureus2025
Polar Body Biopsy Helps in Reducing the Total Pregnancy Loss Rates in Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Cycles.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of polar body biopsy (PBB) on pregnancy and pregnancy loss outcomes in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. METHODOLOGY: This is a retrospective case-control study that analyzed 147 ICSI embryo transfer (ET) cycles. The study included 82 subfertile patients (31 patients with ICSI and PBB therapy = case group; 51 patients with ICSI without the PBB therapy = control group). We conducted a statistical analysis of all pregnancies and births resulting from fresh and thawed ICSI cycles, with and without the use of PBB after a single embryo transfer (SET) of a blastocyst (BL). Our main outcome measures were the pregnancy and pregnancy outcome rates after ICSI with and without the PBB.
resultThe implantation rate in the ICSI with PBB group was lower than in the ICSI without PBB group, but there were no significant differences (11 = 17.50% vs. 21 = 25.00%, RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.28-1.44, p = 0.37). The yolk sac detection rate in the ICSI with PBB group was lower than in the ICSI without PBB group, but there were no significant differences (8 = 12.70% vs. 16 = 19.00%, RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.25-1.55, p = 0.65). The fetal heartbeat rate in the ICSI with PBB group was lower than in the ICSI without PBB group, but there were no significant differences (7 = 11.10% vs. 12 = 14.30%, RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.28-2.03, p = 0.75). The live birth rate in the ICSI with PBB group was higher than in the ICSI without PBB group, but there were no significant differences (5 = 7.90% vs. 5 = 6.00%, RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.37-4.92, p = 0.88). The total pregnancy loss rate was significantly lower in the ICSI with PBB group than in the ICSI without PBB group (6 = 9.50% vs. 19 = 22.60%, RR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.14-0.96, p = 0.04).
conclusionA bigger patient sample is needed for further evaluation, but based on our findings, we recommend the PBB in the cases of apparent or suspected genetic, maternal diseases and/or aneuploidies and for improving general ICSI outcomes, through the reduction of pregnancy loss rates. This information can support reproductive professionals and embryologists who are looking to invest in new solutions for their centers and labs.
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.