ArticleHuman reproduction open2022
Should we adopt a prognosis-based approach to unexplained infertility?
Article in Human reproduction open, 2022. 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.
- Predicting natural conception leading to live birth for couples with infertility: a single-centre population-based cohort study of 7086 couples.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- Two dynamical models for male infertility and their stability and sensitivity analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- External validation of models for predicting cumulative live birth over multiple complete cycles of IVF treatment.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- The effectiveness of immediate versus delayed tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in women with unexplained infertility (H2Oil-timing study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.BMC women's health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment of unexplained infertility is a contentious topic that continues to attract a great deal of interest amongst clinicians, patients and policy makers. The inability to identify an underlying pathology makes it difficult to devise effective treatments for this condition. Couples with unexplained infertility can conceive on their own and any proposed intervention needs to offer a better chance of having a baby. Over the years, several prognostic and prediction models based on routinely collected clinical data have been developed, but these are not widely used by clinicians and patients. In this opinion paper, we propose a prognosis-based approach such that a decision to access treatment is based on the estimated chances of natural and treatment-related conception, which, in the same couple, can change over time. This approach avoids treating all couples as a homogeneous group and minimizes unnecessary treatment whilst ensuring access to those who need it early.
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.