Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40794534›Full record

ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2025

Comparison of Intrauterine Insemination Success Rates Using Donor Sperm Between Heterosexual and Female Couples: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Andreia Gomes, Cristina Nogueira-Silva, Pedro Brandão

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Andreia GomesEscola de Medicina da Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Cristina Nogueira-SilvaEscola de Medicina da Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Pedro BrandãoNext Fertility, Faro, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the success rates of intrauterine insemination with donated sperm between heterosexual and female couples.

methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study involving 519 women who underwent intrauterine insemination with donated sperm over a 5-year period. The sample included 193 women in heterosexual relationships and 326 women in female relationships. Participants were between 18 and 38 years old, undergoing their first reproductive treatment, and had no known female fertility disorders.

resultsNo significant differences were found between the two groups in reproductive outcomes. Positive pregnancy test rates were 35.8% for heterosexual couples and 29.1% for female couples (p=0.12). Ongoing pregnancy rates were 31.6% and 27.3%, respectively (p=0.37). Live birth rates were 29.5% for heterosexual couples and 24.8% for female couples (p=0.2).

conclusionsThis study found no significant differences in intrauterine insemination with donated sperm outcomes between heterosexual and female couples. These findings suggest that the absence of seminal fluid exposure in female couples may not negatively impact reproductive success. However, the role of immune tolerance in assisted reproduction outcomes remains unclear. Further multicenter studies with larger samples are needed to explore the potential influence of seminal fluid and possible clinical interventions that may replicate its effects.

Indexed as

HeterosexualityInsemination, ArtificialInsemination, Artificial, HeterologousSpermatozoaAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMalePregnancyPregnancy RateRetrospective StudiesYoung Adultfemale couplesfertilityheterosexual couplesintrauterine inseminationlive birth ratemedically assisted reproduction

Identifiers

PMID40794534
PMCPMC12694971

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.