Cited by 56Sperm and Testicular FunctionReproductive Health and TechnologiesMale Reproductive Health Studies

Effect of Sperm Morphology on Pregnancy Success via Intrauterine Insemination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kohn, Taylor P., Kohn, Jaden R., Ramasamy, Ranjith·2018·Journal of Urology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Men with abnormal sperm morphology are often counseled that natural conception and intrauterine insemination are ineffective, and in vitro fertilization is the only option. Our objective was to determine the effect of sperm morphology on the pregnancy success of intrauterine insemination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched for studies published prior to January 2017 that 1) reported ultrasound verified clinical pregnancies per intrauterine insemination cycle, 2) assessed sperm morphology using the Kruger strict criteria and 3) described morphology at the greater than 4% and 4% or less and/or the 1% or greater and less than 1% thresholds. In all studies mean female age was between 25 and 40 years and mean total motile sperm count was greater than 10 million. Estimates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 20 observational studies involving a total of 41,018 cycles. When comparing men at the greater than 4% and 4% or less thresholds, the rate of ultrasound verified pregnancy per intrauterine insemination cycle was not statistically or clinically different (14.2% vs 12.1%, p = 0.06) and the risk difference was 3.0% (95% CI 1.4-4.6), indicating 3.0 additional pregnancies per 100 intrauterine insemination cycles. When comparing men at the 1% or greater and the less than 1% thresholds, there were no statistical or clinical differences in the rate of ultrasound verified pregnancy per cycle of intrauterine insemination (14.0% vs 13.9%, p = 0.97) or in the risk difference (1.6%, 95% CI -4.5-7.6). CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be no clinical difference in intrauterine insemination pregnancy success among men with normal and abnormal sperm morphology when accounting for total motile sperm count and female age. Abnormal sperm morphology alone should not exclude couples from attempting intrauterine insemination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.045

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kohn, T. P., Kohn, J. R., & Ramasamy, R.
Affiliations
University of Miami (US)
Venue
Journal of Urology
Published
2018-03
Volume
199
Issue
3
Pages
812-822
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
OpenAlex
W2767913496
Cited by
56
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4
FWCI
0.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Urology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Sperm and Testicular Function
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Male Reproductive Health Studies
Keywords
sperm morphology, intrauterine insemination, pregnancy success, abnormal sperm morphology, male infertility, motile sperm count, assisted reproduction
MeSH terms
Female, Fertilization in Vitro, Humans, Infertility, Male, Insemination, Male, Pregnancy, Sperm Count, Sperm Motility, Pregnancy Rate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review