ReviewJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2017
A New Dawn for Intrauterine Insemination: Efficient and Prudent Practice will Benefit Patients, the Fertility Industry and the Healthcare Bodies.
Review in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pregnancy rates after slow-release insemination (SRI) and standard bolus intrauterine insemination (IUI) - A multicentre randomised, controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Commercial Impacts on Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Scoping Review.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Are Vitamin E Supplementation Beneficial for Female Gynaecology Health and Diseases?Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Clomiphene Citrate versus Recombinant FSH in intrauterine insemination cycles with mono- or bi-follicular development.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2021Article
- A review of conventional and sustained-release formulations of oral natural micronized progesterone in obstetric indications.Drugs in context · 2021Review
- 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
- Reappraisal of clinical data supports double IUI for improved pregnancy outcomes.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review addresses the misplaced facts about the IUI procedure within a lucrative fertility industry. Evidence suggests IUI must be a first-line treatment option for most couples except in cases of bilateral tubal blockage and severe oligozoospermia. We introduce the concept of using 'consecutive ejaculation' in men with subfertility and one which can radically alter the male infertility definition, thereby providing a new approach to examining and managing male factor infertility. The review also explores various aspects affecting the IUI procedure, its determinants of success, risks and areas for future improvements. Areas such as choice of patients, clinical management of patients, the type of stimulation regime, timing and the management of sperm usage have significant bearing to whether IUI will succeed. The paper asserts that IUI should be the first choice of fertility treatment.
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.