ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
SwimCount Harvester™ versus Density Gradient Centrifugation: A Pilot Study exploring Sperm DNA Fragmentation and Motile Sperm Recovery.
Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare SwimCount Harvester™, a non-centrifugal sperm selection system, with Density Gradient Centrifugation (DGC) in terms of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), agreement between analytical methods, and total motile sperm recovery. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis pilot study evaluated semen samples processed using DGC and SwimCount Harvester™. SDF was assessed in raw and processed samples using the Sperm Chromatin Dispersion (SCD; Halosperm®) assay, analyzed both manually and via computer-assisted sperm analysis (SCA® CASA). Agreement between manual and CASA classification (>20% threshold) was evaluated using Cohen's kappa with bootstrap confidence intervals (10,000 resamples). Total motile sperm count (TMSC) was compared between DGC and Harvester (n=36), and effect size was calculated using Cohen's d.
resultsBoth DGC and Harvester significantly reduced SDF compared with raw semen (p<0.001 for all comparisons), with no significant difference between techniques (CASA p=0.219; manual p=0.341). Agreement between manual and CASA assessment improved following processing, reaching perfect concordance after Harvester (κ=1.00; bootstrap 95% CI 0.54-1.00). Harvester yielded significantly higher TMSC compared with DGC (p=0.001), with a large effect size (Cohen's d=0.81).
conclusionSwimCount Harvester™ achieves SDF reduction comparable to DGC while significantly increasing motile sperm recovery. These findings support the potential of non-centrifugal sperm selection as an alternative to conventional methods. Larger studies are required to confirm these results and determine their clinical implications.
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.