SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012
In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Interventions for the prevention of OHSS in ART cycles: an overview of Cochrane reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Assisted reproductive technologies for male subfertility.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs): evaluation of evidence to support public policy development.Reproductive health · 2014Pooled it
- Prevention of multiple pregnancies in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility: randomised controlled trial of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015Trial
- Role of CD138Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Should we adopt a prognosis-based approach to unexplained infertility?Human reproduction open · 2022Article
- Fertility Awareness-Based Methods for Women's Health and Family Planning.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Irresponsibly Infertile? Obesity, Efficiency, and Exclusion from Treatment.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 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
- Infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss and sperm DNA fragmentation, have we found the missing link?Translational andrology and urology · 2017Article
- 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
- Pregnancy Predictors after Intrauterine Insemination in Cases of Unexplained Infertility: A Prospective Study.International journal of reproductive medicine · 2016Article
- Ovarian reserve markers in unexplained infertility patients treated with clomiphene citrate during intrauterine insemination.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2015Article
- Rescue in vitro fertilization using a GnRH antagonist in hyper-responders from gonadotropin intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.