ReviewJBRA assisted reproduction2019
Growing body of evidence supports intrauterine insemination as first line treatment and rejects unfounded concerns about its efficacy, risks and cost effectiveness.
Review in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commercial Impacts on Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Scoping Review.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Low Estradiol Level and Endometrial Thickness on the Day of Endometrial Transformation Influence Clinical Pregnancy After Intrauterine Insemination.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- An Algorithm to Predict the Lack of Pregnancy after Intrauterine Insemination in Infertile Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Patient informed choice in the age of evidence-based medicine: IVF patients' approaches to biomedical evidence and fertility treatment add-ons.Sociology of health & illness · 2023Article
- 'Just have some IVF!': A longitudinal ethnographic study of couples' experiences of seeking fertility treatment.Sociology of health & illness · 2022Article
- Progress in human ovarian rejuvenation: Current platelet-rich plasma and condensed cytokine research activity by scope and international origin.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2021Article
- Clomiphene Citrate versus Recombinant FSH in intrauterine insemination cycles with mono- or bi-follicular development.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2021Article
- 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IUI has been practiced for five decades but only three unconvincing trials attempted to demonstrate the superiority of IUI over sexual intercourse (SI). In the absence of evidence of its effectiveness, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended IVF over IUI after 2 years of unprotected SI. High-quality recent data in well-constructed studies suggest that biases against IUI procedures and in favour of IVF are invalid. It is unethical to continue to misinform patients and stakeholders. The well-constructed randomised controlled trials (RCT) show IUI procedure to be efficient, with minimal risk, and above all improved cost-effectiveness when compared to IVF for live birth. IUI as first-line treatment should be offered to most patients, while funding agencies and stakeholders need to be urgently informed of the cost-benefit in offering IUI. Fertility clinics, IVF interest groups, and regulatory bodies should amend their patient information and guidance to state that IUI should be the first line treatment and that IVF should be offered only when essential. Reappraising and promoting IUI based on evidence enhances patient autonomy, choices, and trust, while allowing the fertility industry to operate within an ethical and acceptable framework not seen as exploitative toward vulnerable patients.
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.