SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003
Single versus double intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Double versus single intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of GnRH antagonists on clinical pregnancy rates in ovulation induction protocols with gonadotropins and intrauterine insemination.Singapore medical journal · 2015Trial
- Evaluation of Prognostic Factors for Clinical Pregnancy Rate Following Artificial Insemination by Husband in the Chinese Population.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Associated factors to pregnancy in intrauterine insemination.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2020Article
- Double intrauterine insemination (IUI) of no benefit over single IUI among lesbian and single women seeking to conceive.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2019Article
- Growing body of evidence supports intrauterine insemination as first line treatment and rejects unfounded concerns about its efficacy, risks and cost effectiveness.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2019Review
- Reappraisal of clinical data supports double IUI for improved pregnancy outcomes.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2018Article
- A New Dawn for Intrauterine Insemination: Efficient and Prudent Practice will Benefit Patients, the Fertility Industry and the Healthcare Bodies.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2017Review
- Male factor infertility and ART.Asian journal of andrology · 2012Review
- The potential use of intrauterine insemination as a basic option for infertility: a review for technology-limited medical settings.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2009Article
- Impact of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist addition on pregnancy rates in gonadotropin-stimulated intrauterine insemination cycles.Journal of human reproductive sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntra uterine insemination (IUI), with or without controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), is one of the treatment modalities offered to couples who have tried to conceive for at least one year (subfertile couples). It has been suggested that increasing the number of inseminations from one per cycle to two might increase the probability of conception.
objectivesTo determine if there is a difference in live birth or pregnancy rates for subfertile couples using single or double intrauterine insemination in stimulated cycles. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility group trials register (searched 8 July 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2002), EMBASE (January 1988 to July 2002), SCIENCE Direct Database (January 1966 to July 2002), Confsci (January 1973 to 15 July 2002), Pascal (January 1984 to July 2002) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled, parallel trials of single versus double intrauterine inseminations in simulated cycles in subfertile couples. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN
resultsThree studies involving 386 women were included. There was no data for the main outcome measure of live birth per couple or ongoing pregnancy rates, and none presented comparative data for adverse events. The results of two studies that reported pregnancy rate per couple did not show a significant effect of using double insemination (Peto OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.78-2.70). REVIEWER'S
conclusionsBased on the results of pregnancy rate per couple of two trials, double intrauterine insemination showed no significant benefit over single intrauterine insemination in the treatment of subfertile couples with husband semen. There are no meaningful data to offer advice regarding clinical practice on the basis of this review.
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.