ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics
Intrauterine insemination in natural cycle may give better results in older women.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of natural versus ovarian stimulation cycles in intrauterine insemination by diverse infertility indications.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundControlled ovarian hyper-stimulation (COH) in combination with intrauterine insemination (IUI) has been shown to result in significantly higher pregnancy rates compared to un-stimulated (natural cycle) IUI. This may however not be true in all ages.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study and analysed data collected prospectively on 1759 IUI cycles in couples with unexplained infertility. The results were analysed to show the outcome of IUI with COH, and IUI in natural cycle (unstimulated), in younger women compared to their older counterparts.
resultsIn women age 37 and younger, COH resulted in a significantly higher pregnancy rate (13.0% vs 6.5%) and live-birth rate (10.7% vs 5.2%) compared to natural cycle IUI (p = 0.025, p = 0.045 respectively). However for older women age >37 years, natural cycle (unstimulated) IUI, resulted in a significantly higher pregnancy rate (12.0% vs 8.5%) live-birth rate (7.5%vs 3.5%) than IUI with COH ((p = 0.0037). This difference is even more significant when COH was performed with clomiphene citrate (7.5% vs 2.1%) (p = 0.0017).
conclusionCOH was associated with a lower live birth rate in older women, irrespective of the agent used, and it seems to be worse when the anti-oestrogenic drug clomiphene citrate was used for COH. Older women may benefit more from natural cycle (unstimulated) IUI. A randomised controlled trial is required to confirm this observation.
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.