ArticleSystematic reviews2025
ICSI with surgically retrieved sperm in azoospermia: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive, perinatal, long-term, and paternal outcomes.
Article in Systematic reviews, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAzoospermia affects ~ 1% of men and represents a major cause of severe male infertility. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with surgically retrieved sperm from the testis or epididymis enables biological fatherhood in obstructive (OA) and non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) patients. However, comparative studies versus ejaculated sperm remain fragmented, particularly for neonatal and long-term offspring outcomes. This study aims to address the existing evidence gap regarding the outcomes of ICSI cycles using surgically retrieved versus ejaculated sperm in men with azoospermia by evaluating reproductive, perinatal, long-term offspring, and paternal outcomes.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted following the PRISMA-P and PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Eligible studies will include randomized and non-randomized comparative designs of ICSI using surgically retrieved versus ejaculated sperm as single-arm studies for outcomes not applicable to ejaculated sperm. The primary outcome is live birth per oocyte pick-up or per started cycle. The secondary outcomes include reproductive, perinatal, long-term offspring, and paternal outcomes. Searches will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ProQuest, supplemented by trial registries, conference proceedings, and grey literature from 1990 onward. The risk of bias will be assessed with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I; certainty of evidence will be assessed with GRADE. Random-effects meta-analyses with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment will be applied, with rare-event models explored as sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: This protocol describes a systematic approach to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICSI via surgically retrieved sperm compared with ejaculated sperm, with a particular focus on filling current evidence gaps in perinatal, offspring, and paternal outcomes. The results will contribute to evidence-based counseling, clinical practice, and guideline refinement. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251142427.
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.