| Literature DB >> 28903451 |
Xiaodan Cao1, Yun Cui1, Xiaoxia Zhang1, Jiangtao Lou1, Jun Zhou1, Renxiong Wei1.
Abstract
Sperm morphology displays a potential impact on sperm function and may ultimately impact reproductive function. Current studies have investigated the correlation between sperm morphology with unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA) but have shown inconsistent results. Hence, we systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CNKI databases, as well as the Cochrane Library for studies that examined the association between sperm morphology and unexplained RSA. Fifteen studies were identified, including 883 cases and 530 controls. Our meta-analysis results indicated that the percentage of normal sperm morphology from men with RSA partners was significantly lower than those from normal controls(SMD [95% CI]: - 0.60 [-0.81, -0.40]; P<0.00001) and the percentage of sperm morphologic alterations was significantly higher in patients with RSA compared with the control group (SMD [95% CI]: 0.92 [0.42, 1.43]; P=0.0004). The present study suggested that the percentage of normal sperm morphology may indeed decrease in men from RSA group compared with controls. However, there were some limitations in the study such as the differences in stain techniques and classification criteria. Further evidences are needed to better elucidate the relationship between sperm morphology and unexplained RSA.Entities:
Keywords: meta-analysis; morphology; recurrent spontaneous abortion; sperm
Year: 2017 PMID: 28903451 PMCID: PMC5589690 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.17233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Flow chart showing the selection of eligible studies
Characteristics of the included studies investigating the relationship between sperm morphology and unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion
| Study | Country | Number (cases/controls) | Mean age (cases/controls) | Assessment result | Classification criteria | Stain technique | NOS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jiang 2011 | China | 62/40 | NI | normal morphology | WHO 2001 | Papanicolaou stain | 8 |
| Liu 2010 | China | 56/56 | NI | normal morphology | WHO | Papanicolaou stain | 6 |
| Ma 2015 | China | 62/35 | (33.6±4.1)/(32.2±3.9) | normal morphology | WHO | Diff-Quik | 7 |
| Wang 2013 | China | 68/63 | NI | normal morphology | WHO 1999 | Papanicolaou stain | 7 |
| Zhang 2012a | China | 111/30 | NI | normal morphology | WHO 1999 | Diff-Quik | 8 |
| Zhang 2012b | China | 40/40 | (28.9±3.7)/(29.4±4.5) | normal morphology | WHO 1999 | NI | 8 |
| Gil-Villa 2010 | Colombia | 23/11. | (37.9±6.5)/(30.0±6.6) | normal morphology | Kruger strict criteria | NI | 7 |
| Nabi 2013 | Iran | 30/30 | (31.97±4.45)/(31.43±7.00) | normal morphology | WHO 2010 | Papanicolaou staining | 8 |
| Talebi 2016 | Iran | 40/40 | (35±6)/(35±6) | normal morphology | WHO 1999 | Papanicolaou staining | 8 |
| Gong 2015 | China | 84/62 | NI | morphologic alterations | WHO | NI | 6 |
| Hill 1994 | Massachusetts | 98/17 | NI | morphologic alterations | WHO 1992 | eosin and thiazine | 8 |
| Kazerooni 2009 | Iran | 30/30 | (34.6±5.6)/(33.8±6.3) | morphologic alterations | Kruger strict criteria | hematoxylin staining | 8 |
| Sbracia1 1996 | Italy | 120/30 | (36.7±4.9)/(35.8±3.1) | morphologic alterations | WHO 1987 | eosin and thiazine | 7 |
| Zhang 2009 | China | 37/26 | NI | morphologic alterations | Kruger strict criteria | Papanicolaou stain | 8 |
| Zidi-Jrah 2016 | Tunisia | 22/20 | (37.1±5.4)/(36.9±5.73) | morphologic alterations | WHO 2010 | NI | 7 |
The assessment result of sperm morphology was expressed as a percentage of normal morphology or morphologic alterations. NI: not indicated in the study.
Figure 2Meta analysis
(A) Forest plot showing the meta-analysis outcomes of the percentage of normal sperm morphology between men with RSA partners and normal controls. (B) Forest plot showing the meta-analysis outcomes of the percentage of sperm morphologic alterations between men with RSA partners and normal controls. IV: inverse variance; Random: random-effects model.
Figure 3Funnel plot analysis
(A) Funnel plot of the percentage of normal sperm morphology between men with RSA partners and normal controls. (B) Funnel plot of the percentage of sperm morphologic alterations between men with RSA partners and normal controls.
Figure 4Begg's publication bias analysis
(A) Begg's publication bias plot of the percentage of normal sperm morphology between men with RSA partners and normal controls. (B) Begg's publication bias plot of the percentage of sperm morphologic alterations between men with RSA partners and normal controls. The funnel plot did not show any substantial asymmetry, suggesting no evidence of publication bias.
Figure 5Sensitivity analysis
(A) Sensitivity analysis plot of the percentage of normal sperm morphology between men with RSA partners and normal controls. (B) Sensitivity analysis plot of the percentage of sperm morphologic alterations between men with RSA partners and normal controls.
A
| Std_Eff | Coef. | Std. Err. | t | P > |t| | [95% Conf. Interval] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| slope | 0.26 | 0.49 | 0.52 | 0.62 | −0.90 1.41 |
| bias | −3.87 | 2.20 | −1.75 | 0.12 | −9.09 1.35 |
B
| Std_Eff | Coef. | Std. Err. | t | P > |t| | [95% Conf. Interval] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| slope | 0.88 | 1.46 | 0.61 | 0.58 | −3.17 4.94 |
| bias | 0.16 | 5.98 | 0.03 | 0.98 | −16.46 16.78 |
A. Egger's test of the percentage of normal sperm morphology between men with RSA partners and normal controls.
B. Egger's test of the percentage of sperm morphologic alterations between men with RSA partners and normal controls.