ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2017
The revival of intrauterine insemination: evidence-based data have changed the picture.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety of Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF) as additive to healthy human sperm samples: a pilot study.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2024Article
- Association between follicle size, endometrial thickness, and types of ovarian stimulation (Clomiphene citrate and Letrozole) with biochemical pregnancy rate in women undergone intrauterine insemination.BMC research notes · 2023Article
- Are Vitamin E Supplementation Beneficial for Female Gynaecology Health and Diseases?Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Improving IUI success by performing modified slow-release insemination and a patient-centred approach in an insemination programme with partner semen: a prospective cohort study.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2021Article
- Twenty-one year experience with intrauterine inseminations after controlled ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins: maternal age is the only prognostic factor for success.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020Article
- Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Review
- 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
- Ultrasound guidance versus the blind method for intrauterine catheter insemination: A randomized controlled trial.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2019Article
- Reappraisal of clinical data supports double IUI for improved pregnancy outcomes.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2018Article
- Impact of current and previous sperm findings on outcomes of intrauterine insemination.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
- The Use of Pooled Consecutive Ejaculates in Moderate Male Factor Infertility to Increase Intrauterine Insemination Success.Journal of human reproductive sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to a number of high quality studies intrauterine insemination (IUI) with homologous semen should be the first choice treatment in case of unexplained and moderate male factor subfertility. IVF and ICSI are clearly over-used in this selected group of infertile couples. The limited value of IUI in infertility treatment as mentioned in the 2013 NICE guidelines was surely a premature statement and should be adapted to the actual literature. More evidence-based data are becoming available on different variables influencing the success rates after IUI. It can be expected that these findings may lead to a better understanding and use of IUI in the near future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29479397PMC5819320What 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.