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

Figure 3.

Three grouped forest plots labeled A, B, and C compare advanced sperm selection methods with conventional methods. A and B show live birth odds ratios for MFSS and MACS methods, respectively, both clustering near one with confidence intervals crossing the null. Plot C compares miscarriage rates, indicating lower odds with the combination of MACS and DGC versus conventional DGC, with a confidence interval under one. Each plot lists included studies, event numbers, odds ratios with confidence intervals, weights, and heterogeneity statistics.

Forest plots for pairwise meta-analysis of live birth rate and miscarriage rate. (A) Forest plot of stratified pairwise meta-analysis comparing the live birth rate between microfluidic sperm sorting (MFSS) and conventional sperm preparation techniques. Two of the three include studies compared between MFSS with density gradient centrifugation (DGC) (Ozaltin et al., (40) and Godiwala et al., (23), while one study compared MFSS with swim-up (SU) (Yetkinel et al., (45). (B) Forest plot of stratified pairwise meta-analysis comparing magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) based advanced sperm preparation with conventional sperm preparation. Conventional sperm preparation techniques, including DGC, SU and DGC-SU, were pooled into a single comparator group, whereas combinations of conventional techniques with MACS were grouped as advanced sperm preparation techniques. (C) Forest plot of pairwise meta-analysis comparing DGC alone with the combination of MACS and DGC.