ArticleF&S reports2025
Novel sperm selection device on the basis of microfluidics improves usable blastocyst rates, embryo morphology, and morphokinetic patterns: sibling cohort prospective study.
Article in F&S reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Article
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
Objective: To assess the performance of a novel microfluidic sperm selection device, SwimCount Harvester (SCH), compared with the Swim-up (SU) method, analyzing both sperm quality and the laboratory's key performance indicators. Design: Prospective, double-blind study using sibling oocytes. Subjects: This study included 100 patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Both partners had normal karyotypes. Male participants provided only fresh ejaculated semen samples without total asthenozoospermia, globozoospermia, azoospermia, or cryptozoospermia. Female partners had at least 2 mature oocytes retrieved. Exposure: Semen samples were analyzed to assess concentration, total progressive motile count, vitality, morphology, chromatin structure integrity, and deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation index (DFI) before and after sperm selection. Subsequently, each sample was divided into two aliquots and processed using either the SCH device or the Swim-up technique. Retrieved oocytes from each patient were divided into two groups and microinjected with sperm from the corresponding preparation method. The injected oocytes were cultured in time-lapse incubators to collect morphokinetic data and apply artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools for assessing oocytes and embryos. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes included fertilization rate, usable blastocyst rate, good-quality blastocyst rate, euploidy rate, embryo morphokinetics, and AI score to predict pregnancy for each embryo. Secondary outcomes encompassed oocyte quality (using AI tool) and sperm quality parameters. Results: SwimCount Harvester yielded significantly higher sperm concentration, morphologically normal sperm, improved chromatin stability, and lower DFI. The usable blastocyst rates were higher in the SCH group (SCH, 40.5%, vs. SU, 34.5%), as well as the good-quality blastocyst rates (SCH, 30.8%, vs. SU, 23.4%). Time to blastocyst formation was shorter in the SCH group (SCH, 106.9 hours, vs. SU, 109.5 hours). Fertilization rates (SCH, 78.8%, vs. SU, 77.0%), euploidy rates (SCH, 40.4%, vs. SU, 37.2%), and AI scores to predict pregnancy (SCH, 5.7%, vs. SU, 4.6%) were comparable. Subgroup analyses revealed higher usable blastocyst and good-quality embryo rates in the SCH group among cases with a DFI of >20%, as well as a higher good-quality embryo rate in low-quality oocytes (AI score of ≤6) in the SCH group. Conclusion: SwimCount Harvester improved sperm quality compared with Swim-up. Furthermore, the SCH device increased the usable blastocyst rate and embryo quality rate and reduced time to blastocyst formation. Nevertheless, no significant differences were observed in the fertilization rates, euploidy rates, or AI scores.
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.