Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37891606›Full record

ReviewBMC women's health2023

Should IUI replace IVF as first-line treatment for unexplained infertility? A literature review.

Jessica Ka-Yan Man, Anne Elizabeth Parker, Sophie Broughton, Hamza Ikhlaq, Mausumi Das

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC women's health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jessica Ka-Yan Man *Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London (Hammersmith Campus), Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK. jessica.man18@imperial.ac.uk.
Anne Elizabeth Parker *Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London (Hammersmith Campus), Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK.
Sophie Broughton *Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London (Hammersmith Campus), Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK.
Hamza Ikhlaq *Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London (Hammersmith Campus), Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK.
Mausumi DasQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS, UK.
Hammersmith Hospital · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnexplained infertility accounts for 25% of infertility causes in the UK. Active intervention methods, such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF), are often sought. Despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommending IVF for unexplained infertility, this recommendation has generated an ongoing debate, with few fertility clinics discontinuing the use of IUI as the first-line management of choice. In contrast to NICE, recent guidance released from the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) in August 2023 supports the use of IUI as first-line. High-quality evidence behind such interventions is lacking, with current literature providing conflicting results.

aimsThis review aims to provide a literature overview exploring whether IUI or IVF should be used as first-line treatment for couples with unexplained infertility, in the context of current guidelines.

methodsThe primary outcome used to assess efficacy of both treatment methods is live birth (LB) rates. Secondary outcomes used are clinical pregnancy (CP) and ongoing pregnancy (OP) rates. A comprehensive literature search of 4 databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Maternity & Infant Care and the Cochrane Library were searched in January 2022. Upon removal of duplications, abstract screening, and full-text screening, a total of 34 papers were selected. DISCUSSION/

conclusionThis review highlights a large discrepancy in the literature when examining pregnancy outcomes of IUI and IVF treatments. Evidence shows IUI increases LB and CP rates 3-fold compared to expectant management. Literature comparing IUI to IVF is less certain. The review finds the literature implies IVF should be used for first-line management but the paucity of high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs), coupled with heterogeneity of the identified studies and a lack of research amongst women > 40 years warrants the need for further large RCTs. The decision to offer IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) or IVF should be based upon patient prognostic factors. We suggest that IUI-OS could be offered as first-line treatment for unexplained infertility for women < 38 years, with good prognosis, and IVF could be offered first to those > 38 years. Patients should be appropriately counselled to enable informed decision making.

Indexed as

InfertilityInsemination, ArtificialFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansOvulation InductionPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy RateInfertilityIUIIVFOvarian stimulationPregnancy outcomesUnexplained infertility

Identifiers

PMID37891606
PMCPMC10612289
OpenAlexW4387968842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.