SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009
Intra-uterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non-tubal infertility.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fallopian Tube Sperm Perfusion in Treatment of Nontubal Subfertility: Is It Crucial Step prior to ART?ISRN obstetrics and gynecology · 2011Article
- The comparison between Intrauterine Insemination and Fallopian Tube Sperm Perfusion Using FAST®System in Patients with Unexplained Infertility.International journal of fertility & sterilityArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundControlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) combined with intrauterine insemination (IUI) is commonly offered to couples with subfertility that does not involve the fallopian tubes. Another method is fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP). This technique ensures the presence of higher sperm densities in the fallopian tubes at the time of ovulation than does standard IUI. The aim of this review was to determine whether FSP and IUI differ in improving the probability of conception.
objectivesTo investigate whether pregnancy and live birth outcomes differ between fallopian tube sperm perfusion and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (October 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2008), and EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2008). Abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1987 to 2008) and European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (1987 to 2008) meetings were searched using the same key or text words. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only truly randomised controlled studies comparing FSP with IUI were included in this review. Couples with non-tubal subfertility who have been trying to conceive for at least one year were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the trials for inclusion based on the quality of the studies. MAIN
resultsEight studies involving 595 couples were included in the meta-analysis. Only one study reported the live birth rate and there was no evidence of a difference between FSP and IUI (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.5). There was no evidence of a difference between FSP and IUI for clinical pregnancy per couple (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.7). A subgroup analysis which included couples with unexplained subfertility only (n = 239) did not report any difference between FSP and IUI (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.8). AUTHORS'
conclusionsFor non-tubal subfertility, the results indicate no clear benefit for FSP over IUI. Therefore the advice offered to subfertile couples regarding the comparative use of FSP versus IUI in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility should reflect this.
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.