Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22513911›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.

Zabeena Pandian, Ahmed Gibreel, Siladitya Bhattacharya

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Assisted reproductive technologies for male subfertility.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Role of CD138Biomedicines · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Irresponsibly Infertile? Obesity, Efficiency, and Exclusion from Treatment.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2019
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Zabeena PandianObstetrics andGynaecology,AberdeenMaternityHospital,Aberdeen,UK. z.pandian@abdn.ac.uk
Ahmed Gibreel
Siladitya Bhattacharya
Aberdeen Maternity Hospital · GBMansoura University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a widely accepted treatment for unexplained infertility (NICE 2004), which affects up to a third of all infertile couples. With estimated live birth rates (LBRs) per cycle varying from 33.1% in women aged under 35 years down to 12.5% in women aged between 40 and 42 years (HFEA 2011), its effectiveness has not been rigorously evaluated in comparison with other treatments. With increasing awareness of the role of expectant management, less-invasive procedures such as intrauterine insemination (IUI), and concerns about multiple pregnancies and costs associated with IVF, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of IVF against other treatment options in couples with unexplained infertility.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF compared to expectant management, clomiphene citrate, IUI alone and intrauterine insemination plus controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI+SO). SEARCH

methodsCochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched July 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, first quarter), MEDLINE (1970 to July 2011), EMBASE (1985 to July 2011) and reference lists of articles were searched. Relevant conference proceedings were handsearched. Authors were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. LBR per woman was the primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials. MAIN

resultsSix RCTs were included in the final analysis. LBR per woman was significantly higher with IVF (45.8%) than expectant management (3.7%) (odds ratio (OR) 22.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37, 1 RCT, 51 women). There were no comparative data for clomiphene citrate. There was no evidence of a significant difference in LBR between IVF and IUI alone (OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.36, 1 RCT, 113 women), 40.7% with IVF versus 25.9% with IUI. In studies comparing IVF versus IUI+SO, LBR per woman did not differ significantly between the groups among treatment-naive women (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.59, 2 RCTs, 234 women) but was significantly higher in a large RCT of women pretreated with IUI + clomiphene citrate (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.63, 1 RCT, 341 women). These three studies could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity (I(2) = 84%). There was no evidence of a significant difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) or ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) between the two treatments (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.29, 3 RCTs, 351 women; OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.49, 1 RCT, 118 women, respectively). AUTHORS'

conclusionsIVF may be more effective than IUI+SO. Due to paucity of data from RCTs the effectiveness of IVF for unexplained infertility relative to expectant management, clomiphene citrate and IUI alone remains unproven. Adverse events and the costs associated with these interventions have not been adequately assessed.

Indexed as

Live BirthClomipheneFemaleFertility Agents, FemaleFertilization in VitroGamete Intrafallopian TransferHumansInfertility, FemaleInsemination, ArtificialOvulation InductionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicClomipheneFertility Agents, Female

Identifiers

PMID22513911
OpenAlexW4249925273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.