ArticleClinical and experimental reproductive medicine2026
Separation of sperm based on rheotaxis mechanism using a microfluidic device.
Article in Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative analysis of sperm preparation techniques on DNA fragmentation and clinical outcomes: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Expert-Annotated Optical Microscopy Images of Human Sperm for Detection and DNA Fragmentation Assessment.Scientific data · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn the application of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), selection of the optimal sperm presents a challenge. This study introduces an innovative microfluidic device that utilizes rheotaxis to efficiently sort sperm, offering superior selection of high-quality sperm compared to conventional methods.
methodsWe analyzed 30 normal samples from couples undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles at the Infertility Center of Fatemieh Hospital in Hamadan, Iran. Each sample was divided into three groups: the initial sample, representing the control group; direct swimup sperm selection; and sperm selection using rheotaxis. A syringe pump connected to the microfluidic device generated optimal flow conditions. Spermatozoa were evaluated regarding concentration, motility, morphology, mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP), and sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI). Statistical significance was determined using one-way analysis of variance and the Student t-test.
resultsThe concentration (7.46±2.84 million cells/mL vs. 56.67±18.27 million cells/mL, p<0.0001) and DFI (2.93±2.70 vs. 21.13±5.27, p<0.0001) were significantly lower in the sperm selected using the rheotaxis microfluidic device than in the control sperm. Progressive motility (98.10%±2.41% vs. 44.13%±7.06%, p<0.0001), normal morphology (8.36%±1.47% vs. 5.20%±1.15%, p<0.0001), and MMP (99.63%±0.71% vs. 81.13%±9.19%, p<0.0001) were significantly higher with the device than in the control group.
conclusionThe use of a rheotaxis-based microfluidic device appeared effective in selecting high-quality sperm, demonstrating improvements in motility, morphology, and MMP and a reduction in DFI. This advancement has the potential to improve the outcomes of ART.
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.