ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2025
Comparison of Swim-Up and Microfluidic Sperm Sorting Methods in Selection of Sperm for Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of microfluidic sperm sorting (MFSS) systems in infertility treatment is increasing due to their practicality and ease of use. While often presented as highly effective, their efficacy in patients with varying sperm analysis results remains uncertain. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of MFSS compared with the swim-up (SU) technique in terms of oxygen radical levels and spermiogram parameters. Samples from each patient were processed using both methods, followed by assessments of sperm concentration, motility, morphology, DNA integrity, acrosomal status, and mitochondrial membrane potential. Participants were selected based on sperm analysis and categorized as normozoospermic (n = 40) or non-normozoospermic (n = 28). An analysis of separation techniques revealed no significant differences, except for a lower percentage of DNA-fragmented sperm in the MFSS group compared with SU within the non-normozoospermic cohort (SU: 10.0% vs. MFSS: 5.69%,
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.