ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2026
A comparison of simplified versus the original media in standard vapor freezing and in-house vitrification of human sperm.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of three commercial sperm freezing media with regard to the influence on sperm motility, vitality and DNA fragmentation.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe compared post-cryopreserved outcomes of normozoospermic semen samples after cryopreservation by vitrification and liquid nitrogen vapor freezing, using the original and the simplified preservation media.
methodsForty normozoospermic semen samples were used in the study. Post-prepared semen samples were divided into five aliquots: one served as non-cryopreserved control; two were vitrified using in-house (In-house-V) or sucrose media (Simp-V); and the last two aliquots were frozen in liquid nitrogen vapor, using commercial (Com-L) or sucrose media (Simp-L).
resultsSperm after cryopreservation regardless of the media and method used, significantly decreased in motility, viability, and increased ROS level without changes in sperm morphology and DNA fragmentation. Simplified sucrose freezing medium significantly increases post-thawed motility (57.6% (53.2-68.9) vs. 34.5% (27.3-43.6) in Simp-L and Com-L) and viability (61.0% (52.0-67.8) vs. 37.0% (29.3-46.0) in Simp-L and Com-L) in vapor freezing but significantly decrease post-thawed motility (58.8% (51.4-63.3) vs. 77.8% (70.8-81.3) in Simp-V and In-house-V) and viability (59.0% (53.2-66.0) vs. 75.5% (68.0-83.0) in Simp-V and In-house-V) in vitrification. A simplified medium does not affect sperm morphology, ROS level, and DNA fragmentation.
conclusionsIn liquid nitrogen vapor freezing, a simplified medium significantly improved sperm motility and viability compared with commercial medium. In vitrification, the simplified medium gave inferior results on sperm motility and viability compared to the original preservation medium.
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.