SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002
In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- The Effect of Endometrial Cell Culture onCell journal · 2022Article
- Effect of the anterior uterocervical angle in unexplained infertility: a prospective cohort study.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
- Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in unexplained and stage I endometriosis-associated infertility after fertilization failure with in vitro fertilization (IVF).Journal of assisted reproduction and geneticsArticle
- Stimulated intrauterine insemination (SIUI) and donor insemination (DI) as first line management for a selected subfertile population: the Manchester experience.Journal of assisted reproduction and geneticsArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn vitro fertilisation (IVF) is now a widely accepted treatment for unexplained infertility (RCOG 1998). However, with estimated livebirth rates per cycle varying between 13% and 28%, it's effectiveness has not been rigorously evaluated in comparison with other treatments. With increasing awareness of the role of expectant management and less invasive procedures such as intrauterine insemination, concerns about multiple complications and costs associated with IVF, it is extremely important to evaluate the effectiveness of IVF against other treatment options in couples with unexplained infertility.
objectivesThe aim of this review is to determine, in the context of unexplained infertility, whether IVF improves the probability of livebirth compared with 1. expectant management 2. clomiphene citrate (CC) 3. intra uterine insemination (IUI) alone 4. IUI with controlled ovarian stimulation and 5. Gamete IntraFallopian Transfer (GIFT). SEARCH STRATEGY: RCTs were identified using the search strategies developed for the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. See Review group for more information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials were included. Livebirth rate per woman was the primary outcome of interest. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials. MAIN
resultsNine randomised controlled trials were identified. In two we could not extract data separately for unexplained infertility cases, two were non-randomised, one reported no valid rates (included in the review and not in the meta-analysis), leaving four trials for analysis. One trial compared two different interventions (IVF versus IUI with or without ovarian stimulation) and one study compared three interventions (IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation and GIFT). The number of trials assessing the effectiveness of IVF with the other treatments were as follows: IVF versus expectant management (one), IVF versus IUI (one), IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation (two) and IVF versus GIFT (three). Livebirth rate per woman was reported in two studies and three studies determined clinical pregnancy rate per woman. Multiple pregnancy rate was reported in three trials. Two studies reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) as an outcome measure. There were no comparative data for clomiphene citrate, and no comparative data on livebirth rates for expectant management or GIFT. There was no evidence of a difference in livebirth rates between IVF and IUI either without (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.1) or with (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.8) ovarian stimulation. There was no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy rates between IVF and expectant management. There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rates between IVF and GIFT (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92). There was no evidence of a difference in the multiple pregnancy rates between IVF and either IUI with ovarian stimulation (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.70) or GIFT (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.58). Clinical heterogeneity was present among the studies included. However, there was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity, which allowed the studies to be combined for statistical analysis. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsAny effect of IVF relative to expectant management, clomiphene citrate, IUI with or without ovarian stimulation and GIFT in terms of livebirth rates for couples with unexplained subfertility remains unknown. The studies included are limited by their small sample size, so that even large differences might be hidden. Livebirth rates are seldom reported. Adverse effects such as multiple pregnancies and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome have also not been reported in most studies. Larger trials with adequate power are warranted to establish the effectiveness of IVF in these women. Future trials should not only report rates per woman /couple but also include adverse effects and costs of the treatments compared as outcomes. Factors that have a major effect on these outcomes such as fertility treatment, female partner's age, duration of infertility and previous pregnancy history should also be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.