ArticleReproductive medicine and biology
Comparative Evaluation of Two Microfluidic Sperm Sorting Devices: Laboratory Assessment of Sperm Quality and Retrospective Analysis of Embryological Outcomes Following Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection.
Article in Reproductive medicine and biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized non-inferiority within-patient trial of density gradient processing of sequential ejaculates versus centrifugation-free sperm separation device for ICSI in men with elevated sperm DNA fragmentation- study protocol.Frontiers in urology · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Two Microfluidic Sperm Sorting Devices: Laboratory Assessment of Sperm Quality and Retrospective Analysis of Embryological Outcomes Following Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Density gradient centrifugation (DGC) enriches motile sperm but may increase sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), whereas microfluidic sperm sorting devices, such as ZyMōt and CA0, enable centrifugation-free selection with lower SDF. Direct comparisons are limited, and their relative clinical efficacy remains unclear. We compared sperm parameters and SDF after DGC, ZyMōt, and CA0 to evaluate sperm selection performance and assessed the clinical utility of ZyMōt and CA0 based on intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcomes. Methods: Seventeen semen samples were aliquoted into three groups and processed using DGC, ZyMōt, or CA0. Sperm parameters and SDF were evaluated before and after selection. ICSI was performed using ZyMōt or CA0-selected sperm, inseminating 108 oocytes with ZyMōt and 64 with CA0, followed by the comparative analysis of embryo development. Results: ZyMōt-selected sperm exhibited higher motility, average path velocity, and amplitude of lateral head displacement than DGC ( Conclusions: ZyMōt demonstrated superior sperm quality compared with DGC and CA0, and favorable ICSI outcomes further support its potential clinical applicability. Trial Registration: The study (H2023-230) was registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) Clinical Trials Registry in Japan (jRCT1040230045).
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.