ArticleHuman reproduction open2025
Do different male infertility factors impact embryological, cumulative pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in IVF/ICSI cycles? A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Human reproduction open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Distinct pregnancy challenges in PCOS women undergoing IVF/ICSI with singleton and twin births: a propensity-matched analysis.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Article
- The Influencing Factors and Predictive Algorithm of Pregnancy Outcomes in IVF/ICSI-ET Patients.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionWhat are the impacts of different male infertility factors on embryological, cumulative pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of IVF/ICSI cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: Some severe male infertility factors, i.e. severe oligoasthenozoospermia (OAT-S) and non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA), may be negatively associated with fertilization, embryo development, and cumulative live birth rates, but not with neonatal outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous studies examining the effect of male infertility factors on IVF/ICSI clinical outcomes have drawn contradictory conclusions, largely because the semen quality of male partners could fluctuate due to many factors, and there are many confounding factors from female partners. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This retrospective cohort study involved 4714 males with various semen abnormalities and 10 283 males with normozoospermia whose partners underwent their first IVF/ICSI cycle between January 2018 and September 2022 in the reproductive medicine centre of a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING
methodsOnly couples with infertility caused by fallopian tubal factors, male factors, or unknown reasons were included. The patients were divided into five different groups: normozoospermia (N), mild-moderate male factor (MMF), OAT-S, azoospermia-husband (Azoospermia-H), and azoospermia-donor (Azoospermia-D). The Azoospermia-H group was further divided into obstructive azoospermia (OA) and NOA. We compared rates of fertilization, embryo development, and cumulative pregnancy as well as neonatal outcomes. Reproductive and neonatal outcomes of men with various semen abnormalities were studied through propensity score matching (PSM) comparisons along with corresponding control groups (N) (with matching factors: female age, female BMI, male age, male BMI, ovarian stimulation protocol, number of oocytes obtained, and endometrial thickness). Fertilization outcomes were also compared and stratified by IVF or ICSI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The mean female ages in the azoospermia, OAT-S, MMF, and N groups were 28.9, 29.4, 31.0, and 31.0 years old, respectively, which were similar between groups after PSM. The normal fertilization rates were significantly reduced in the OAT-S and Azoospermia-H groups compared with the control group in ICSI cycles (68.1% vs 71.5%, LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main limitation of this study was the observational and retrospective design itself. Despite covariate adjustment, residual bias remained, and the single-centre cohort limited its generalizability. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsThese findings offer new insights for the OAT-S and NOA groups for whom interventions before IVF/ICSI could be encouraged. Reassuringly, IVF/ICSI may be an effective and safe method for patients in the MMF, Azoospermia-D, and OA groups, avoiding additional medical treatments and associated burdens. STUDY FUNDING COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan Fund (No. 2018YFA0108400). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection or analysis, publication decision, or manuscript preparation. The authors declare that they have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
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.