SynthesisAsian journal of andrology2013
Double versus single homologous intrauterine insemination for male factor infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Asian journal of andrology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Double versus single intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- 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
- Do Serum Vitamin D Levels Have Any Effect on Intrauterine Insemination Success?International journal of fertility & sterility · 2018Article
- Single-donor and double-donor sperm intrauterine insemination cycles: does double intrauterine insemination increase clinical pregnancy rates?Fertility and sterility · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Male factor infertility affects 30%-50% of infertile couples worldwide, and there is an increasing interest in the optimal management of these patients. In studies comparing double and single intrauterine insemination (IUI), a trend towards higher pregnancy rates in couples with male factor infertility was observed. Therefore, we set out to perform a meta-analysis to examine the superiority of double versus single IUI with the male partner's sperm in couples with male factor infertility. An odds ratio (OR) of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for the pregnancy rate. Outcomes were analysed by using the Mantel-Haesel or DerSimonian-Laird model according to the heterogeneity of the results. Overall, five trials involving 1125 IUI cycles were included in the meta-analysis. There was a two-fold increase in pregnancies after a cycle with a double IUI compared with a cycle with a single IUI (OR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.07-3.75; P<0.03). Nevertheless, this result was mainly attributed to the presence of a large trial that weighted as almost 50% in the overall analysis. Sensitivity analysis, excluding this large trial, revealed only a trend towards higher pregnancy rates among double IUI cycles (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 0.59-4.21), but without statistical significance (P=0.20). Our systematic review highlights that the available evidence regarding the use of double IUI in couples with male factor infertility is fragmentary and weak. Although there may be a trend towards higher pregnancy rates when the number of IUIs per cycle is increased, further large and well-designed randomized trials are needed to provide solid evidence to guide current clinical practice.
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.