ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2020
Intrauterine insemination cycles: prediction of success and thresholds for poor prognosis and futile care.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A retrospective cohort study: predictive nomogram for clinical pregnancy outcomes after intrauterine insemination.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Development of a machine learning-based prediction model for clinical pregnancy of intrauterine insemination in a large Chinese population.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Article
- Is There Any Effect of Change in Pre-Wash and Post-Wash Semen Parameters on the Success of Intrauterine Insemination?Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to define intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycle characteristics associated with viable birth, identify thresholds below which IUI treatments are consistent with very poor prognosis and futile care, and develop a nomogram for individualized application.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated couples using fresh partner ejaculate for IUI from January 2005 to September 2017. Variables included female age, semen characteristics, and ovarian stimulation type. Using cycle-level data, we evaluated the association of these characteristics with the probability of viable birth by fitting generalized regression models for a binary outcome with a logit link function, using generalized estimating equation methodology to account for the correlation between cycles involving the same patient.
resultsThe cohort consisted of 1117 women with 2912 IUI cycles; viable birth was achieved in 275 (9.4%) cycles. Futile care (viable birth rate < 1%) was identified for women age > 43, regardless of stimulation type or inseminate motility (IM). Very poor prognosis (viable birth rate < 5%) was identified for women using oral medications or Clomid plus gonadotropins who were (1) age < 35 with IM < 49%, (2) age 35-37 with IM < 56%, or (3) age ≥ 38, and (4) women age ≥ 38 using gonadotropins only with IM < 60%. A clinical prediction model and nomogram was developed with an optimism-corrected c-statistic of 0.611.
conclusionsThe present study highlights the impact of multiple clinical factors on IUI success, identifies criteria consistent with very poor prognosis and futile care, and provides a nomogram to individualize counseling regarding the probability of a viable birth.
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.