ArticleJournal of advanced research2025
Factors affecting the intracytoplasmic sperm cell injection outcomes: A meta-analysis of porcine studies.
Article in Journal of advanced research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epigenetic Drift and the Generational Limit of Serial Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer in Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Chemical reprogramming regulates Tip60 expression to improve cleavage rates in somatic cell nuclear transfer reconstituted embryos of cashmere goats.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
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
backgroundIntracytoplasmic sperm cell injection (ICSI) has the potential to produce gene-edited (GE) pigs for biomedical research, but its success is limited. The factors impeding ICSI in pigs are impractical in-vivo oocyte production, incomplete cytoplasmic maturation of in-vitro matured (IVM) oocytes, inefficient methods for sperm selection and membrane removal, abnormal sperm nucleus decondensation, substandard protocols for oocyte stimulation, suboptimal in-vitro culture (IVC) systems, and high embryonic/fetal losses. AIM OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to investigate the effects of interventions in ICSI on oocyte activation, fertilization, cleavage, blastocyst, blastomere count, and live birth by means of robust statistical meta-analytical methods. KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS OF REVIEW: A total of 61 studies published between 1905 ∼ 2024 met the inclusion criteria. The results of the meta-analysis suggested that manipulation in the IVM media did not improve oocyte developmental competency to blastocysts but increased the blastomere count, especially with the addition of thiol compounds. Consistently, manipulation with sperm was beneficial only for increasing the cleavage and blastomere count. Exogenous stimulation increased the relative risk (RR) for oocyte activation (10 %), fertilization (33 %), cleavage (18 %), and blastocyst formation (71 %) but did not affect the blastomere count. Chemical stimulation either pre- or post-ICSI was more beneficial than electrical stimulation. Manipulation of the culture increased the RR for oocyte activation (14 %) and fertilization (37 %) but did not benefit cleavage, blastocyst formation, or blastomere count. The subgroup analyses revealed that supplementation with thiol compounds was indeed beneficial. Our network meta-analysis also supported the findings of classical meta-analyses showing that cysteine, cysteamine, epidermal growth factor, amino acid supplementation in maturation and culture media, and Triton treatment of sperm improved blastocyst formation. The overall success rate of live births from total embryos transferred after ICSI was not greater than 2 %. Although, manipulations that were beneficial for ICSI outcomes were identified in this meta-analysis, however, areas where more robust data are needed to reach a conclusive decision are highlighted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.