Trial reportScientific reports2025
Quasi-randomized pilot clinical trial comparing the use of annexin columns in patients with abnormal sperm FISH undergoing IVF techniques.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06524102 (Evaluation of the Efficacy of Annexin Columns), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of the Efficacy of Annexin Columns (MACS) in Patients With Altered Sperm FISH Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Techniques
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several studies have shown that Magnetic Activated Cell Sorting (MACS), also known as annexin columns, are capable of eliminating sperm with chromosomal abnormalities in IVF. So, it is a promising tool for men with abnormal sperm FISH results, since they select better-quality gametes with normal chromosomal content, mitigating the poor reproductive outcomes caused by this alteration. Our study (quasi-randomized clinical trial) is the first to evaluate the efficacy of MACS in patients with abnormal sperm FISH results in terms of IVF laboratory results. In addition, we communicate a descriptive analysis of the cases in which sperm FISH was performed during the study period to investigate the prevalence of abnormal results among the indications for which this technique was requested. The overall prevalence of patients with abnormal sperm FISH results was 8.5%, but it varied. This prevalence was 13.9% when indication for the analysis was male factor, 9.1% when recurrent miscarriages in combination with male factor, and 2.7% when only recurrent miscarriage. The use of MACS in addition to conventional technique for patients with abnormal sperm FISH results undergoing IVF-ICIS reported no differences versus the control group in fertilization rates (66.7% vs. 69%, p = 0.75), abnormal fertilization (8.3% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.49), biopsiable embryos (87.5% vs. 83.7%, p = 0.73) and euploidy (30.8% vs. 30%, p = 0.93). Sperm FISH analysis is a useful test in the diagnosis of infertility for couples with male factor and/or recurrent miscarriage. The use of MACS in patients with abnormal sperm FISH showed no evidence of differences in the laboratory results analysed in the limited cohort studied. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT06524102.
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.