Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41836350›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2026

Evaluating the potential for sperm DNA fragmentation testing to guide the use of ICSI for couples with non-severe male infertility.

Yuanyuan Wang, Rui Wang, Ying Lian, Rui Yang, Jiangman Gao, Jianqiao Liu, Li Tang, Xiaoyan Liang, Yunxia Cao, Wen Li and 8 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03298633 (Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03298633 nacompletednot on this map

Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) Versus Conventional in Vitro Fertilization (IVF) in Couples With Non-severe Male Infertility: a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorJie QiaoRan2018 to 2023Enrolled2,387ConditionsMale InfertilityArmsICSI, Conventional IVF
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Yuanyuan WangNational Clinical Research Centre for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Female Fertility Promotion, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7968-2240
Rui WangNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6622-8134
Ying LianNational Clinical Research Centre for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Female Fertility Promotion, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Rui YangNational Clinical Research Centre for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Female Fertility Promotion, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6381-5202
Jiangman GaoNational Clinical Research Centre for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Female Fertility Promotion, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3169-2199
Jianqiao LiuCentre for Reproductive Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Li TangCentre for Reproductive Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Xiaoyan LiangCentre for Reproductive Medicine, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yunxia CaoCentre for Reproductive Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8715-0874
Wen LiThe International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9468-5570
Li JinObstetrics and Gynaecology Hospital, Institute of Reproduction and Development, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yimin ZhuWomen's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9667-3677
Junli ZhaoCentre for Reproductive Medicine, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, China.
Guimin HaoCentre for Reproductive Medicine, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Huichun WangCentre for Reproductive Medicine, Haidian Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Beijing, China.
Ben W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8337-550X
Rong LiNational Clinical Research Centre for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Female Fertility Promotion, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0305-5579
Jie QiaoNational Clinical Research Centre for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Female Fertility Promotion, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2126-1376

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionIn couples with non-severe male infertility, can sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI) testing serve as a biomarker to identify couples who would benefit from ICSI over conventional IVF, based on cumulative live birth rate? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) indicated that sperm DFI testing has limited value in identifying couples who would benefit from use of ICSI over IVF, based on cumulative live birth rate. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: We recently demonstrated that in couples with non-severe male factor infertility, ICSI decreases cumulative live birth rates following the first transfer compared to IVF. However, it remains unclear whether sperm DFI testing can effectively guide treatment selection between ICSI and IVF. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We used data of participants included in a randomized controlled trial comparing ICSI versus IVF in couples with non-severe male factor infertility. Participants had been recruited between April 2018 and November 2021 from seven centres in China, with follow-up outcomes collected as of 31 August 2023. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsWe included 953 of 2329 couples in whom the male partner had a baseline sperm DFI test from seven centres within the original RCT. The primary outcome was cumulative live birth, defined as a live birth following embryo transfers that occurred within 12 months after randomization within one oocyte retrieval cycle. The statistical analysis was performed based on an as-treated population, including 480 in the ICSI group and 473 in the IVF group. Multivariable fractional polynomial interaction analysis was performed to investigate non-linear interaction between DFI test and treatment effects of ICSI over IVF. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The median values of sperm DFI were 18.8% (interquartile range [IQR]: 12.2%∼26.3%) in the ICSI group, and 18.4% (IQR: 12.6%∼25.1%) in the IVF group. In each quantile of sperm DFI (Q1: DFI < 12.3%; Q2: 12.3≤DFI < 18.6%; Q3: 18.6≤DFI < 25.9%; Q4: DFI ≥ 25.9%), there were no significant differences of ICSI vs IVF on cumulative live birth (Q1: 36.7% vs 49.6%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.36 to 1.04; Q2: 51.8% vs 50.4%, aOR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.84; Q3: 48.4% vs 56.3%, aOR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.33; Q4: 45.2% vs 49.1%, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.37). Multivariable fractional polynomial interaction analysis showed no evidence of interaction between sperm DFI and the treatment effect of ICSI over IVF on cumulative live birth ( LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION: First, sperm DFI testing was not routinely performed across all trial sites. Second, this study may be underpowered to detect differences in some outcomes, especially total fertilization failure, due to the very small number of events. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsSperm DFI testing during the basal semen analysis has limited value in guiding the choice of fertilization methods for patients with non-severe male infertility. Based on the current evidence, sperm DFI testing should not be routinely recommended for this population. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program (2022YFC2703102 to Y.W.), and the Peking University Third Hospital (BYSYDL2022001 to J.Q., BYSYDL2024003 to Y.W., and BYSYZD2019007 to Y.L.). B.W.M. reports consultancy, travel support, and research funding from Merck KGaA and consultancy for Organon and Norgine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The original trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03298633.

Indexed as

assisted reproductive outcomesICSIIVFnon-severe male infertilitysperm DNA fragmentation

Identifiers

PMID41836350
PMCPMC12981913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.