ArticleAnnals of medicine2026
Comparative analysis of natural versus ovarian stimulation cycles in intrauterine insemination by diverse infertility indications.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe clinical intrauterine insemination (IUI) outcomes among infertile patients with different infertility indications, and further compare reproductive outcomes between natural cycle (NC) and ovarian stimulation cycle (OSC) IUI. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 1451 infertile couples that underwent their first IUI cycle with husband sperm were included in this retrospective cohort study. The clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates were compared between NC and OSC by diverse infertility indications.
resultsA total of 833 NC-IUI and 618 OSC-IUI cycles were available for analysis. Logistic regression showed patients with ovulatory disorder had significantly higher clinical pregnancy (21.99% vs 14.15%; AOR 1.992, 95% CI 1.207-3.288) and live birth rates (18.67% vs 11.51%; AOR 2.326, 95% CI 1.312-4.124), along with a higher preterm birth rate (
conclusionOvulatory disorder was independently associated with favorable IUI outcomes. For patients with endometriosis, tubal factor infertility and male factor infertility, NC-IUI showed a potential trend of clinical applicability, while OSC-IUI tended to be more suitable for unexplained infertility; however, these subgroup differences did not reach statistical significance and warrant further validation in larger cohorts.
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.