The following is a summary of “Effect of semen collection location on semen parameters and fertility outcomes and implications for practice in the COVID-19 era: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies,” published in the February 2023 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology by Kerdtawee, et al.

Semen collection at infertility clinics might enhance the danger of SARS-CoV-2 dissemination during the COVID-19 timeframe. A seminal fluid collection at home is another strategy for stopping the spread. The results of semen parameters and assisted reproductive technology using semen collected at home vs at a clinic had not yet been determined. For a study, researchers sought to evaluate the impact of semen collection sites on semen characteristics and reproductive outcomes.

The primary electronic databases, such as MEDLINE through Ovid, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, OpenGrey, and CENTRAL, were used to conduct a literature search covering the period from their establishment to September 2021. All human randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared the effects of at-home semen collection with in-clinic semen collection on semen parameters and reproductive outcomes were included. By combining the mean difference and risk ratio, we used Review Manager software 5.4.1. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations technique was used to rate the effectiveness of the evidence.

There were seven included investigations, totaling 3,018 semen samples. In comparison to in-clinic semen collection, at-home semen collection results showed little to no difference in sperm count (mean difference, −6.02; 95% CI, −27.26 to 15.22; very low-quality evidence), sperm motility (mean difference, 0.76; 95% CI, −4.39 to 5.92; very low-quality evidence), and semen volume (mean difference, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0. There was no change in the rate of in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86–1.25; very low-quality evidence) or the rate of fertilization (risk ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97–1.03; very low-quality evidence).

Compared to the in-clinic collection, at-home semen collection exhibited no negative impact on semen parameters or reproductive results. But more reliable proof was required.

Reference: ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(22)00726-8/fulltext