ABSTRACT
<p><b>Objective</b>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) for couples with male factor infertility.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Using the Cochrane system evaluation method, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and SinoMed and manually searched the reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ICSI and IMSI published from 1992 to July 2017. We performed a meta-analysis on the included literature with the RevMan 5.3 software and subgroup analyses due to the prominent clinical heterogeneity of the patients.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Of the 280 articles retrieved, 8 RCTs were included, involving 1 741 IVF cycles (842 cycles of IMSI versus 899 cycles of ICSI). There was no evidence for any significant difference between IMSI and ICSI in the live birth rate in the subgroup of infertility induced by pure male factors (RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.68－2.51; very low quality evidence from 1 RCT with 77 cycles) but an association of IMSI with an increased clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.02－2.07; low quality evidence from 4 RCTs with 813 cycles), nor was there any evidence for that in the live birth rate (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.60－1.31; low quality evidence from 1 RCT with 255 cycles) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.86－1.23; moderate quality evidence from 3 RCTs with 851 cycles) in the subgroup of infertility caused by accompanying male factors.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>The evidence is of low quality for the association of IMSI with an increased rate of clinical pregnancy and is not sufficient to support the routine use of IMSI in IVF for male factor infertility.</p>
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Male , Pregnancy , Fertilization in Vitro , Methods , Infertility, Male , Therapeutics , Pregnancy Rate , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Sperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicABSTRACT
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of assisted hatching (AH) performed in couples with advanced maternal age.We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in electronic databases,including MEDLINE,EMBASE and CENTRAL (from inception to January 2018);in addition,we hand-searched the reference lists of included studies and similar reviews.We included RCTs comparing AH versus no treatment (control).The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software.The search retrieved 943 records and 8 RCTs were included,comprising 870 cycles (n=440 for AH,and n=430 for control).There was no significant difference in the rates of live birth (RR 0.88,95％ CI 0.65 to 1.18,3 RCTs,n=427,I2=0％),clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00,95％ CI 0.83 to 1.19,8 RCTs,n=870,I2=22％),implantation (RR 1.07,95％ CI 0.83 to 1.39,4 RCTs,n=1359,I2=0％),miscarriage (RR 1.13,95％ CI 0.66 to 1.94,2 RCTs,n=116,I2=0％) and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.89,95％ CI 0.31 to 2.52,1 RCT,n=97,I2=not applicable) between the treatment group and control group.No reasonable conclusions could be drawn regarding reproductive outcomes after AH in patients with advanced maternal age due to the small sample pooled in meta-analyses.Studies of high methodological quality and with adequate power are necessary to further investigate the value of AH in assisted conception of those patients.
ABSTRACT
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of assisted hatching (AH) performed in couples with advanced maternal age.We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in electronic databases,including MEDLINE,EMBASE and CENTRAL (from inception to January 2018);in addition,we hand-searched the reference lists of included studies and similar reviews.We included RCTs comparing AH versus no treatment (control).The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software.The search retrieved 943 records and 8 RCTs were included,comprising 870 cycles (n=440 for AH,and n=430 for control).There was no significant difference in the rates of live birth (RR 0.88,95％ CI 0.65 to 1.18,3 RCTs,n=427,I2=0％),clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00,95％ CI 0.83 to 1.19,8 RCTs,n=870,I2=22％),implantation (RR 1.07,95％ CI 0.83 to 1.39,4 RCTs,n=1359,I2=0％),miscarriage (RR 1.13,95％ CI 0.66 to 1.94,2 RCTs,n=116,I2=0％) and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.89,95％ CI 0.31 to 2.52,1 RCT,n=97,I2=not applicable) between the treatment group and control group.No reasonable conclusions could be drawn regarding reproductive outcomes after AH in patients with advanced maternal age due to the small sample pooled in meta-analyses.Studies of high methodological quality and with adequate power are necessary to further investigate the value of AH in assisted conception of those patients.