ArticleInternational journal of reproductive biomedicine2026
Comparison of intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes in men with spinal cord injury using sperm retrieved by electroejaculation and testicular sperm extraction methods: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in International journal of reproductive biomedicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) face fertility concerns due to various causes, such as low sperm quality and ejaculatory dysfunction. Consequently, different sperm retrieval techniques are used for these cases, including testicular sperm extraction (TESE) and electroejaculation (EE). Clinical and neonatal outcomes have been reported inconsistently between these 2 methods. Objective: This study aimed to compare the chemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rate in men with SCI undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection using sperm obtained via EE vs. TESE. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted between 2017 and 2023. 37 men with SCI underwent 2 different sperm retrieval techniques. Sperm was retrieved using EE in 18 cycles, while TESE was performed in 36 cycles. Then, chemical, clinical, and live birth rates were reported. Results: Overall, 21 (38.8%) chemical pregnancies were obtained. Moreover, 19 (35.18%) clinical pregnancies were achieved. The live birth rate was 20.3%. No statistically significant differences were observed between the EE and TESE groups in terms of chemical pregnancy (44.4% vs. 36.1%, p = 0.55), clinical pregnancy (33.3% vs. 36.1%, p = 0.89), or live birth rates (22.2% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.81). Conclusion: Both retrieval techniques, EE and TESE, can be applicable strategies for intracytoplasmic sperm injection procedures in men with SCI with no discrepancy in pregnancy outcomes.
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.