ArticleFertility and sterility2022
Effectiveness and safety of intrauterine insemination vs. assisted reproductive technology: emulating a target trial using an observational database of administrative claims.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation for unexplained infertility: a collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis.Human reproduction update · 2024Pooled it
- Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Design and Implementation of Observational Studies Emulating a Target Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Effect of transabdominal versus transvaginal cerclage on preterm birth and neonatal outcomes among patients with a history of cervical insufficiency.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Article
- Adjusting for selection bias due to missing eligibility criteria in emulated target trials.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Using national in vitro fertilization registries to validate clinical outcomes after in vitro fertilization covered by health insurance.Fertility and sterility · 2025Article
- Accounting for Twins and Other Multiple Births in Perinatal Studies of Live Births Conducted Using Healthcare Administration Data.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Internal validation of gestational age estimation algorithms in health-care databases using pregnancies conceived through fertility procedures.American journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Metformin Use in the First Trimester of Pregnancy and Risk for Nonlive Birth and Congenital Malformations: Emulating a Target Trial Using Real-World Data.Annals of internal medicine · 2024 · on this mapObservational
- Accounting for Twins and Other Multiple Births in Perinatal Studies Conducted Using Healthcare Administration Data.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of 1 cycle of assisted reproductive technology (ART) vs. 3 cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI).
designTarget trial emulation using observational data.
settingA healthcare claims database (2011-2015). PATIENT(S): The patients were 29,021 women aged 18-45 years with an infertility diagnosis and no history of IUI or ART within the past 12 months. INTERVENTION(S): One ART cycle immediately, with no more cycles of ART or IUI within the next 4 months; or 1 IUI cycle immediately, with 2 additional consecutive cycles of IUI within the next 4 months unless pregnancy occurred. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Live births, multiple births, congenital malformations, preterm births, small-for-gestational-age newborns, large-for-gestational-age newborns, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension. RESULT(S): The probability of live birth was 27.3% for ART and 26.3% for IUI. The observational analogue of per-protocol risk difference (95% confidence interval) for ART compared with IUI was 1.0% (-0.1%, 2.2%) for live births, 4.3% (3.7%, 4.9%) for multiple births, 3.4% (2.8%, 4.0%) for preterm births, 1.5% (0.9%, 2.1%) for NICU admissions, and 0.6% (0.2%, 1.0%) for gestational diabetes. The risk differences for the other outcomes were <0.5%. The results of the 2 strategies were similar in women ≤40 years, but in women >40 years the probability of live birth was greater for ART (14.4%) than for IUI (7.4%). CONCLUSION(S): Compared with 3 cycles of IUI, 1 cycle of ART was estimated to have a similar probability of live birth but slightly higher risks of multiple gestations, preterm births, and NICU admissions.
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.