Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25576320›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2015

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.

A J Bensdorp, R I Tjon-Kon-Fat, P M M Bossuyt, C A M Koks, G J E Oosterhuis, A Hoek, P G A Hompes, F J M Broekmans, H R Verhoeve, J P de Bruin and 16 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Assisted reproductive technologies for male subfertility.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  9. In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

A J BensdorpCentre for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, 1100 DD Amsterdam, Netherlands.
R I Tjon-Kon-FatCentre for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, 1100 DD Amsterdam, Netherlands.
P M M BossuytDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam.
C A M KoksMáxima Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Veldhoven, Netherlands.
G J E OosterhuisSt Antonius Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nieuwegein, Netherlands.
A HoekUniversity Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Groningen, Netherlands.
P G A HompesVrije Universiteit Medical Centre, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam.
F J M BroekmansUniversity Medical Centre Utrecht, Department for Reproductive Medicine, Utrecht, Netherlands.
H R VerhoeveOnze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
J P de BruinJeroen Bosch Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 's Hertogenbosch, Netherlands.
R van GoldeUniversity Medical Centre Maastricht, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht, Netherlands.
S ReppingCentre for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, 1100 DD Amsterdam, Netherlands.
B J CohlenIsala Clinics, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zwolle, Netherlands.
M D A LambersAlbert Schweitzer Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
P F van BommelAmphia Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Breda, Netherlands.
E SlappendelCatharina Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
D PerquinMedical Centre Leeuwarden, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leeuwarden, Netherlands.
J M SmeenkElisabeth Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Tilburg, Netherlands.
M J PelinckScheper Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Emmen, Netherlands.
J GianottenKennemer Gasthuis, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Haarlem, Netherlands.
D A HoozemansMedical Spectrum Twente, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Enschede, Netherlands.
J W M MaasMáxima Medical Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Veldhoven, Netherlands.
M J C EijkemansUniversity Medical Centre Utrecht, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Utrecht, Netherlands.
F van der VeenCentre for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, 1100 DD Amsterdam, Netherlands.
B W J MolThe Robinson Research Institute, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
M van WelyCentre for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, 1100 DD Amsterdam, Netherlands m.vanwely@amc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle with that of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of a healthy child.

designMulticentre, open label, three arm, parallel group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

setting17 centres in the Netherlands.

participantsCouples seeking fertility treatment after at least 12 months of unprotected intercourse, with the female partner aged between 18 and 38 years, an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception, and a diagnosis of unexplained or mild male subfertility.

interventionsThree cycles of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer (plus subsequent cryocycles), six cycles of in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, or six cycles of intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation within 12 months after randomisation.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was birth of a healthy child resulting from a singleton pregnancy conceived within 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, time to pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, and neonatal morbidity and mortality

results602 couples were randomly assigned between January 2009 and February 2012; 201 were allocated to in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 194 to in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 207 to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Birth of a healthy child occurred in 104 (52%) couples in the in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer group, 83 (43%) in the in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle group, and 97 (47%) in the intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation group. This corresponds to a risk, relative to intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation, of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.34) for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and 0.91 (0.73 to 1.14) for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle. These 95% confidence intervals do not extend below the predefined threshold of 0.69 for inferiority. Multiple pregnancy rates per ongoing pregnancy were 6% (7/121) after in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 5% (5/102) after in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 7% (8/119) after intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation (one sided P=0.52 for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer compared with intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation; one sided P=0.33 for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation).

conclusionsIn vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle were non-inferior to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of the birth of a healthy child and showed comparable, low multiple pregnancy rates.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Indexed as

Infertility, MaleSingle Embryo TransferAdolescentAdultEmbryo TransferFemaleFertilization in VitroFollow-Up StudiesHumansInsemination, ArtificialMaleNetherlandsPregnancyPregnancy, MultiplePregnancy OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25576320
PMCPMC4288434

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.