SynthesisJournal of ovarian research2026
Impact of smooth endoplasmic reticulum aggregates in oocytes on embryo development and clinical outcomes in ICSI cycles: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of ovarian research, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of smooth endoplasmic reticulum aggregates (SERAs) in oocytes on embryo development and clinical outcomes in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles remains controversial, creating uncertainty in clinical decision-making, particularly regarding whether SERA-containing oocytes should be used or excluded during ICSI. This meta-analysis evaluates the effect of SERAs on these outcomes and provides evidence to inform clinical practice in assisted reproductive technology.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO, and CBM to identify studies assessing impact of SERAs on embryo development and clinical outcomes in ICSI cycles. Both prospective and retrospective observational studies were included. Only ICSI cycles were included, and studies were eligible if they reported at least one relevant embryological or clinical endpoint. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and meta-analysis was conducted RevMan 5.3 to estimate fertilization rate, Day 3 high-quality embryo, blastocyst formation, implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth.
resultsSixteen studies were included, comprising 17,001 SERA-negative cycles and 2,336 SERA-positive cycles. Meta-analysis revealed no differences between SERA-positive and SERA-negative groups in fertilization rate (I2 = 69%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–1.05; P = 0.18), Day 3 high-quality embryo rate (I2 = 96%, OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.67–1.60, P = 0.88), blastocyst formation rate (I2 = 90%, OR = 0.90, 95%CI 0.71–1.14, P = 0.37), implantation rate (I2 = 61%, OR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.77–1.20, P = 0.73), clinical pregnancy rate (I2 = 27%, OR = 1.02, 95%CI 0.92–1.14, P = 0.68), miscarriage rate (I2 = 0%, OR = 1.17, 95%CI 0.94–1.45, P = 0.17), and live birth rate (I2 = 58%, OR = 1.06, 95%CI 0.82–1.36, P = 0.65).
conclusionThis meta-analysis indicates that SERAs in oocytes do not significantly affect embryo development or clinical outcomes in ICSI cycles, suggesting that SERA-positive oocytes may not need to be routinely discarded during clinical decision-making.
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.