Cochrane · systematic review · CD010461
Advanced sperm selection techniques for assisted reproduction
Lepine, S, McDowell, S, Searle, LM, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
19
current version
GRADE rated
19
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 15 · 78.9%Low 4 · 21.1%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Show all 2 versionsHyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) compared to ICSI for assisted reproduction
Population: assisted reproduction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth per woman randomly assigned Hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) vs ICSI | RR 1.09 [0.97, 1.23] | 2 studies · 2903 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Miscarriage per woman randomly assigned Hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) vs ICSI | RR 0.61 [0.45, 0.83] | 3 studies · 3005 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Miscarriage per clinical pregnancy Hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) vs ICSI | RR 0.62 [0.46, 0.82] | 3 studies · 1065 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy per woman randomly assigned Hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) vs ICSI | RR 1 [0.92, 1.09] | 4 studies · 3492 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) compared to viscous medium containing HA (SpermSlow) for assisted reproduction
Population: assisted reproduction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth per woman randomly assigned Hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) vs viscous medium containing HA (SpermSlow) | RR 1.13 [0.64, 2.01] | 1 study · 100 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage per woman randomly assigned Hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) vs viscous medium containing HA (SpermSlow) | RR 0.8 [0.23, 2.81] | 1 study · 100 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage per clinical pregnancy Hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) vs viscous medium containing HA (SpermSlow) | RR 0.76 [0.24, 2.44] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy per woman randomly assigned Hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) vs viscous medium containing HA (SpermSlow) | RR 1.05 [0.66, 1.68] | 1 study · 100 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Magnetic‐activated cell sorting (MACS) compared to ICSI for assisted reproduction
Population: assisted reproduction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth per woman randomly assigned Magnetic‐activated cell sorting (MACS) vs ICSI | RR 1.95 [0.89, 4.29] | 1 study · 62 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage per woman randomly assigned Magnetic‐activated cell sorting (MACS) vs ICSI | RR 0.95 [0.16, 5.63] | 2 studies · 150 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage per clinical pregnancy Magnetic‐activated cell sorting (MACS) vs ICSI | RR 0.51 [0.09, 2.82] | 2 studies · 53 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy per woman randomly assigned Magnetic‐activated cell sorting (MACS) vs ICSI | RR 1.05 [0.84, 1.31] | 3 studies · 413 participants | Very low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Zeta sperm selection compared to ICSI for assisted reproduction
Population: assisted reproduction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth per woman randomly assigned Zeta sperm selection vs ICSI | RR 2.48 [1.34, 4.56] | 1 study · 203 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage per woman randomly assigned Zeta sperm selection vs ICSI | OR 0.73 [0.16, 3.37] | 1 study · 203 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage per clinical pregnancy Zeta sperm selection vs ICSI | RR 0.41 [0.1, 1.68] | 1 study · 62 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy per woman randomly assigned Zeta sperm selection vs ICSI | RR 1.82 [1.2, 2.75] | 1 study · 203 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Magnetic‐activated cell sorting (MACS) compared to hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) for assisted reproduction
Population: assisted reproduction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Miscarriage per woman randomly assigned Magnetic‐activated cell sorting (MACS) vs hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) | RR 1.52 [0.1, 23.35] | 1 study · 78 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage per clinical pregnancy Magnetic‐activated cell sorting (MACS) vs hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) | RR 1.06 [0.07, 15.64] | 1 study · 37 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy per woman randomly assigned Magnetic‐activated cell sorting (MACS) vs hyaluronic acid‐selected sperm (HA‐ICSI) | RR 1.44 [0.91, 2.27] | 1 study · 78 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |