Skip to main content
. 2026 Jul 13;17:1817587. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2026.1817587

Figure 2.

Panel A presents a circular network diagram with colored nodes of various sizes representing different sample groups, labeled with names and sample counts, connected by lines annotated with numbers. Panel B shows a simplified network with four colored nodes labeled DGC, DGC-MACS, SU, and MFSS with sample sizes, connected by gray lines bearing numeric labels to indicate relationship strength or similarity.

Network plots of sperm preparation techniques for DNA fragmentation and clinical pregnancy outcomes. (A) Network plot for the network meta-analysis of sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI). Each node represents a sperm preparation technique; the size of the node and numbers next to it correspond to the total number of semen samples processed using that technique across all included studies. Lines connecting nodes indicate direct head-to-head comparisons. The numbers displayed on each line represent the total number of direct comparisons between the two connected techniques. (B) Network plot for the network meta-analysis of clinical pregnancy rate. Each node represents a sperm preparation technique. Node size and the numbers adjacent to each node indicate the total numbers of couples treated with technique across all included randomized controlled trials. Lines connecting nodes represent direct comparisons between techniques, and the numbers displayed on each line represent the total number of studies contributing to each comparison. DGC, density gradient centrifugation; PSU, Pellet Swim-Up; DSU, Direct Swim-Up; DGC-PSU, Swim-Up after DGC; MACS, magnetic-activated cell sorting; MACS-DGC, DGC-MACS, PSU-MACS, MACS-WSU, sequential combination methods; MFSS, Microfluidic sperm sorting; DGC+MACS, combination of MACS with DGC (non-sequential).