SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Intrauterine insemination + controlled ovarian hyperstimulation versus in vitro fertilisation in unexplained infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation for unexplained infertility: a collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis.Human reproduction update · 2024Pooled it
- Evidence-based guideline: unexplained infertility†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Guideline
- The role of maternal physical activity on in vitro fertilization outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Pooled it
- 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
- Should IUI replace IVF as first-line treatment for unexplained infertility? A literature review.BMC women's health · 2023Review
- Predicting success of intrauterine insemination using a clinically based scoring system.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIUI + COH is widely used in cases of unexplained infertility before resorting to IVF. Debate continues about what should be the first-line treatment for couples with unexplained infertility.
objectivesThis systematic review assessed the relative efficacy of IUI + COH compared with IVF in couples with unexplained infertility. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline, Embase, CIHNL, Pscy Info, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to November 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only RCTs published articles in full text with female patients aged 18-43 years and diagnosed with unexplained infertility were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors reviewed citations from primary search independently and any disagreement was resolved by mutual discussion and consultation with a third author. MAIN
resultIn total, eight RCTs were included. The quality of evidence was moderate to low due to inconsistency across the trials and imprecision. The pooled result showed that IVF was associated with a statistically significant higher live birth rate (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01-2.32, P < 0.00001 I
conclusionFurther research using a standardised treatment protocol and taking into account important prognostic variables and cumulative live birth rates from fresh IVF and all sibling frozen embryos is required to further guide clinical practice.
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.