ArticleThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2026
Comparing Sperm Selection Tools to Improve DNA Integrity.
Article in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSperm selection tools are used in assisted reproduction to isolate spermatozoa with the least DNA fragmentation (DF) to optimize fertilization, improve pregnancy outcome and reduce genetic abnormalities in the offspring.
aimsThis study aims to compare the sperm DF after three different sperm selection tools were performed on split samples from the neat (unprocessed, control) semen sample. (1) Density gradient centrifugation (DGC). (2) Density gradient centrifugation with swim-up (DGC + swim-up). (3) Microfluidic chip (ZyMot). The primary outcome was the DF of spermatozoa after sperm selection tool as measured by Halosperm test. Scientific time taken to perform the test and the cost of consumables were recorded. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a prospective assessor blinded controlled trial between split semen samples conducted at Care Fertility (Australia) in 2024/2025 to compare DF after sperm selection. For each sample, a routine semen analysis was performed, and residual sample was split for processing by sperm selection tools.
resultsThirty participants consented and underwent the trial. Neat (control) semen: mean sperm DF = 9.5% DGC: mean sperm DF = 4.83% AUD34.11 consumables + 60 min scientific time. DGC+Swim-up: mean sperm DF = 1.8% AUD34.73 consumables + 90 min scientific time. Microfluidic Chip mean sperm DF = 0.06% AUD143.46 consumables + 30 min scientific time.
conclusionsMicrofluidic chip is highly effective at selecting sperm with the least DF and is faster to perform than DGC +/- Swim up.
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.