IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0165125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Sperm DNA Fragmentation and Clinical Outcomes of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Maartje Cissen
  • Madelon van Wely
  • Irma Scholten
  • Steven Mansell
  • Jan Peter de Bruin
  • Ben Willem Mol
  • Didi Braat
  • Sjoerd Repping
  • Geert Hamer

Abstract

Sperm DNA fragmentation has been associated with reduced fertilization rates, embryo quality, pregnancy rates and increased miscarriage rates. Various methods exist to test sperm DNA fragmentation such as the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA), the sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test, the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick end labelling (TUNEL) assay and the single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) assay. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the value of measuring sperm DNA fragmentation in predicting chance of ongoing pregnancy with IVF or ICSI. Out of 658 unique studies, 30 had extractable data and were thus included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the sperm DNA fragmentation tests had a reasonable to good sensitivity. A wide variety of other factors may also affect the IVF/ICSI outcome, reflected by limited to very low specificity. The constructed hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curve indicated a fair discriminatory capacity of the TUNEL assay (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.74) and Comet assay (AUC of 0.73; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.97). The SCSA and the SCD test had poor predictive capacity. Importantly, for the TUNEL assay, SCD test and Comet assay, meta-regression showed no differences in predictive value between IVF and ICSI. For the SCSA meta-regression indicated the predictive values for IVF and ICSI were different. The present review suggests that current sperm DNA fragmentation tests have limited capacity to predict the chance of pregnancy in the context of MAR. Furthermore, sperm DNA fragmentation tests have little or no difference in predictive value between IVF and ICSI. At this moment, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of sperm DNA fragmentation tests in couples undergoing MAR both for the prediction of pregnancy and for the choice of treatment. Given the significant limitations of the evidence and the methodological weakness and design of the included studies, we do urge for further research on the predictive value of sperm DNA fragmentation for the chance of pregnancy after MAR, also in comparison with other predictors of pregnancy after MAR.

Suggested Citation

  • Maartje Cissen & Madelon van Wely & Irma Scholten & Steven Mansell & Jan Peter de Bruin & Ben Willem Mol & Didi Braat & Sjoerd Repping & Geert Hamer, 2016. "Measuring Sperm DNA Fragmentation and Clinical Outcomes of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0165125
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165125
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165125&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0165125?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kamil Gill & Joanna Jakubik & Aleksandra Rosiak-Gill & Michał Kups & Mariusz Lukaszuk & Maciej Kurpisz & Monika Fraczek & Małgorzata Piasecka, 2019. "Utility and Predictive Value of Human Standard Semen Parameters and Sperm DNA Dispersion for Fertility Potential," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-11, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0165125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.