ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection utilization relative to reported male factor infertility prevalence and its association with preimplantation genetic testing use: a national clinic-level study.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is frequently used in assisted reproductive technology practice beyond cycles with reported male factor infertility (MFI). We conducted a hypothesis-generating clinic-level analysis to characterize the relationship between reported ICSI utilization and MFI prevalence and to evaluate the association of their descriptive differential with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) utilization. Live birth rate (LBR) per transfer was examined as a secondary exploratory outcome.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, hypothesis-generating ecological analysis of publicly available 2021-2022 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention clinic-level data. The ICSI-MFI differential was defined as the reported ICSI utilization percentage minus the reported MFI percentage and was interpreted as a descriptive index because the component variables used nonidentical denominators and populations. Spearman correlation evaluated associations involving PGT utilization, and LBR per transfer was compared across data-derived ICSI utilization tiers as a secondary exploratory analysis. Clustering-aware and clinic-volume-weighted sensitivity analyses were performed.
resultsMedian reported ICSI utilization was 87.8% (IQR, 70.9%-94.3%), compared with a median reported MFI percentage of 27.7% (IQR, 19.0%-36.0%). The ICSI percentage was numerically higher than the MFI percentage in 97.9% of clinic-years. The ICSI-MFI differential demonstrated a modest positive correlation with PGT utilization (Spearman rho = 0.312, p < 0.001), and raw ICSI utilization was also positively correlated with PGT utilization (rho = 0.231, p < 0.001). In the secondary LBR analysis, an unweighted difference across ICSI tiers (p = 0.003) did not persist after accounting for clinic-level clustering, either through a random intercept model (p = 0.058) or clinic-volume weighting with clinic-clustered standard errors (p = 0.070).
conclusionAt the clinic level, the reported ICSI utilization percentage was frequently and substantially higher than the reported MFI percentage, although these measures had nonidentical denominators and cannot identify nonindicated ICSI use in individual cycles. PGT utilization demonstrated a modest positive association with the descriptive ICSI-MFI differential, but the ecological data do not establish causation or the underlying laboratory mechanism. These findings should be interpreted as a hypothesis-generating assessment of contemporary practice patterns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42806208What 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.