Cited by 18Sperm and Testicular FunctionReproductive Health and TechnologiesAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Impact of Abnormal Sperm Morphology on Live Birth Rates Following Intrauterine Insemination

Abstract

Purpose We evaluated the live birth rate and the prevalence of congenital anomalies in couples undergoing intrauterine insemination with abnormal sperm morphology (less than 4% normal forms). Materials and methods We retrospectively reviewed intrauterine insemination outcomes from January 2012 to March 2015. Patients who were found to have an ultrasound confirmed clinical pregnancy were contacted to determine the live birth rate and the prevalence of congenital abnormalities. We used chi-square analysis to assess categorical variables and the Student t-test to assess continuous variables. Logistic regression was done to assess the odds of achieving pregnancy and the risk of spontaneous abortion while assessing female age, the total motile count and sperm morphology. Results In 984 intrauterine insemination procedures performed in a total of 501 couples we found no difference in the ultrasound clinical pregnancy rate in couples with sperm morphology less than 4% vs 4% or greater (12.3% vs 13.6%, p=0.59). We collected live birth and birth abnormality data on 95 of the 130 couples with ultrasound confirmed clinical pregnancy for a 73% response rate. We found no difference in the live birth rate or the spontaneous abortion rate after an ultrasound confirmed clinical pregnancy in couples with abnormal sperm morphology (less than 4% normal forms). There was also no increased risk of birth abnormalities for patients with abnormal sperm morphology. Conclusions Abnormal sperm morpholo…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ju.0000000000000288

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Patel, P., Carrasquillo, R., Madhusoodanan, V., Dadoun, S., Patel, A., Smith, N., Collazo, I., Kohn, T., & Ramasamy, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • South Florida Institute for Reproductive Medicine, Jupiter, Florida
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
Journal of Urology
Published
2019-10
Volume
202
Issue
4
Pages
801-805
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
OpenAlex
W2941698634
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.91
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 › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Keywords
abnormal sperm morphology, intrauterine insemination, live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, congenital malformations, miscarriage, male infertility, sperm motility
MeSH terms
Congenital Abnormalities, Teratozoospermia, Adult, Birth Rate, Female, Fertilization in Vitro, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Retrospective Studies, Sperm Count, Sperm Motility, Spermatozoa, Prevalence, Treatment Outcome, 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