-
Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) May 2017Is pre-ovulatory endometrial thickness (EMT) in women with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with ovarian stimulation (OS) associated with pregnancy chances? (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY QUESTION
Is pre-ovulatory endometrial thickness (EMT) in women with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with ovarian stimulation (OS) associated with pregnancy chances?
SUMMARY ANSWER
We found no evidence for an association between EMT and pregnancy chances.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
It has been suggested that OS with clomiphene citrate (CC) results in a lower EMT than with gonadotrophins or aromatase inhibitors, but the clinical consequences in terms of pregnancy are unclear.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing CC, gonadotrophins or aromatase inhibitors in an IUI program reporting on EMT and pregnancy rates in women with unexplained subfertility.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the non-MEDLINE subset of PubMed from inception to 28th June 2016 and cross-checked references of relevant articles. Outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate and mean pre-ovulatory EMT. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs with a fixed effect model, and in case of heterogeneity with an I2 > 50% a random effect model. We performed a meta-regression analysis to determine if stimulating drugs interacted with the estimated effect of EMT.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
Our search retrieved 1563 articles of which 23 were included, totaling 3846 women. There were 17 RCTs and 6 cohort studies. The average study quality was low and there was considerable to substantial statistical heterogeneity. Seven studies provided data on EMT in relation to pregnancy. There was no evidence of a difference in EMT between women who conceived and women that did not conceive (1525 women, MDrandom: 0.51 mm, 95% CI: -0.05 to 1.07). Women treated with CC had a significantly thinner EMT than women treated with gonadotrophins (two studies, MD: -0.33, 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.01). There was no evidence of a difference in EMT when comparing CC with letrozole (five studies, MDrandom: -0.84, 95% CI: -1.97 to 0.28). The combination of CC plus gonadotrophins resulted in a slightly thinner endometrium than letrozole (nine studies, MDrandom: -0.79, 95% CI: -1.37 to -0.20). Letrozole resulted in a thinner EMT than gonadotrophins (two studies, MDrandom: -1.31, 95% CI: -2.08 to -0.53).
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
The overall quality of the included studies was low to moderate. We found considerable to substantial heterogeneity in the comparisons, hampering firm conclusions.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
We found no evidence for an association between EMT and pregnancy rates during IUI -OS. As a consequence, canceling IUI cycles because of a thin endometrial lining may negatively affect clinical care. Although we found some evidence for very small differences in EMT when comparing various drugs, we cannot make inferences on their effect on pregnancy chances since these differences may be coincidental.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
None.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
N/A.
Topics: Endometrium; Female; Humans; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Organ Size; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy Rate
PubMed: 28333207
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dex035 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2007Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. Its use, especially when combined with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. Its use, especially when combined with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) has been subject of discussion. Although the treatment itself is less invasive and expensive than others, its efficacy has not been proven. Furthermore, the adverse effects of OH such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS ) and multiple pregnancy are a concern.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review is to determine whether for couples with male subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rates or ongoing pregnancy rates compared with timed intercourse (TI), with or without OH.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual and Disorders Subfertility Group Trials Special Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library, 2006, issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2006), EMBASE (1980 to May 2006), SCIsearch and the reference lists of articles. We hand searched abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. Authors of identified articles were contacted for unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) with at least one of the following comparisons were included: 1) IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycles 2) IUI versus TI both in cycles with OH 3) IUI in natural cycles versus TI + OH 4) IUI + OH versus TI in natural cycles 5) IUI in natural cycles versus IUI + OH Couples with abnormal sperm parameters only were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two co-reviewers independently performed quality assessment and data extraction. Where possible data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was performed. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were carried out where possible and appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials of parallel design, and five trials of cross-over design with pre-cross-over data were included in the meta-analysis. Three compared IUI with TI both in stimulated cycles. The remaining four of these studies compared IUI versus IUI + OH . Three studies reported on our main outcome of interest live birth rate per couple. For the comparison IUI versus TI both in natural cycles no evidence of difference between the probabilities of pregnancy rates per woman after IUI compared with TI was found (Peto OR 5.3, 95% CI 0.42 to 67). No statistically significant of difference between pregnancy rates (PR) per couple for IUI + OH versus IUI could be found (Peto OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.37). For the comparison IUI versus TI both in stimulated cycles there was no evidence of statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates per couple either (Peto OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.37). There were insufficient data available for adverse outcomes such as OHSS, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage rate and ectopic pregnancy to perform a statistical analysis. For the other two comparisons no RCT's were found which reported pregnancy rates per couple. A further 10 studies which included one of the comparisons of interests were found. Since these studies reported pregnancy rates per cycle only these data could not be included in the meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence of effectiveness to recommend or advise against IUI with or without OH above TI, or vice versa. Large, high quality randomised controlled trials, comparing IUI with or without OH with pregnancy rate per couple as the main outcome of interest are lacking. There is a need for such trials since firm conclusions cannot be drawn yet.
Topics: Coitus; Female; Fertilization; Humans; Infertility, Male; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Ovulation Induction
PubMed: 17636632
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000360.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2007Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. Its use, especially when combined with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. Its use, especially when combined with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) has been subject of discussion. Although the treatment itself is less invasive and expensive than others, its efficacy has not been proven. Furthermore, the adverse effects of OH such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS ) and multiple pregnancy are a concern.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to determine whether for couples with male subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rates or ongoing pregnancy rates compared with timed intercourse (TI), with or without OH.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual and Disorders Subfertility Group Trials Special Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library, 2006, issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2006), EMBASE (1980 to May 2006), SCIsearch and the reference lists of articles. We hand searched abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. Authors of identified articles were contacted for unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) with at least one of the following comparisons were included: 1) IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycles 2) IUI versus TI both in cycles with OH 3) IUI in natural cycles versus TI + OH 4) IUI + OH versus TI in natural cycles 5) IUI in natural cycles versus IUI + OH. Couples with abnormal sperm parameters only were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two co-reviewers independently performed quality assessment and data extraction. Where possible data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was performed. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were carried out where possible and appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials of parallel design, and five trials of cross-over design with pre-cross-over data were included in the meta-analysis. Three compared IUI with TI both in stimulated cycles. The remaining four of these studies compared IUI versus IUI + OH . Three studies reported on our main outcome of interest live birth rate per couple. For the comparison IUI versus TI both in natural cycles no evidence of difference between the probabilities of pregnancy rates per woman after IUI compared with TI was found (Peto OR 5.3, 95% CI 0.42 to 67). No statistically significant of difference between pregnancy rates (PR) per couple for IUI + OH versus IUI could be found (Peto OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.37). For the comparison IUI versus TI both in stimulated cycles there was no evidence of statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates per couple either (Peto OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.37). There were insufficient data available for adverse outcomes such as OHSS, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage rate and ectopic pregnancy to perform a statistical analysis. For the other two comparisons no RCT's were found which reported pregnancy rates per couple. A further 10 studies which included one of the comparisons of interests were found. Since these studies reported pregnancy rates per cycle only these data could not be included in the meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence of effectiveness to recommend or advise against IUI with or without OH above TI, or vice versa. Large, high quality randomised controlled trials, comparing IUI with or without OH with pregnancy rate per couple as the main outcome of interest are lacking. There is a need for such trials since firm conclusions cannot be drawn yet.
Topics: Coitus; Female; Fertilization; Humans; Infertility, Male; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Ovulation Induction
PubMed: 17943739
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000360.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003Intra uterine insemination (IUI), with or without controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), is one of the treatment modalities offered to couples who have tried to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Intra uterine insemination (IUI), with or without controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), is one of the treatment modalities offered to couples who have tried to conceive for at least one year (subfertile couples). It has been suggested that increasing the number of inseminations from one per cycle to two might increase the probability of conception.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if there is a difference in live birth or pregnancy rates for subfertile couples using single or double intrauterine insemination in stimulated cycles.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility group trials register (searched 8 July 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2002), EMBASE (January 1988 to July 2002), SCIENCE Direct Database (January 1966 to July 2002), Confsci (January 1973 to 15 July 2002), Pascal (January 1984 to July 2002) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled, parallel trials of single versus double intrauterine inseminations in simulated cycles in subfertile couples.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies involving 386 women were included. There was no data for the main outcome measure of live birth per couple or ongoing pregnancy rates, and none presented comparative data for adverse events. The results of two studies that reported pregnancy rate per couple did not show a significant effect of using double insemination (Peto OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.78-2.70).
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of pregnancy rate per couple of two trials, double intrauterine insemination showed no significant benefit over single intrauterine insemination in the treatment of subfertile couples with husband semen. There are no meaningful data to offer advice regarding clinical practice on the basis of this review.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Insemination, Artificial, Homologous; Male; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate
PubMed: 12535490
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003854 -
Fertility and Sterility Mar 2009To systematically review the literature to identify randomized controlled trials, which evaluate interventions aiming to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature to identify randomized controlled trials, which evaluate interventions aiming to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
University-based hospital.
INTERVENTION(S)
None.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Pregnancy rate.
RESULT(S)
Twenty-two eligible randomized controlled trials were identified that evaluated in total 15 interventions to increase pregnancy rates in poor responders. Based on limited evidence, the only interventions that appear to increase the probability of pregnancy were the addition of GH to ovarian stimulation (odds ratio for live birth: 5.22, confidence interval: 95% 1.09-24.99) and the performance of embryo transfer on day 2 compared with day 3 (ongoing pregnancy rate: 27.7% vs. 16.3%, respectively; difference: +11.4, 95% confidence interval: +1.6 to +21.0).
CONCLUSION(S)
Insufficient evidence exists to recommend most of the treatments proposed to improve pregnancy rates in poor responders. Currently, there is some evidence to suggest that addition of GH, as well as performing embryo transfer on day 2 versus day 3, appear to improve the probability of pregnancy.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Embryo Culture Techniques; Embryo Transfer; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Growth Hormone; Humans; Insemination, Artificial; Odds Ratio; Oocyte Retrieval; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Probability; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 18639875
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.077 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is a widely-used fertility treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Although IUI is less invasive and less expensive than in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is a widely-used fertility treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Although IUI is less invasive and less expensive than in vitro fertilisation (IVF), the safety of IUI in combination with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is debated. The main concern about IUI treatment with OH is the increase in multiple pregnancy rates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether, for couples with unexplained subfertility, the live birth rate is improved following IUI treatment with or without OH compared to timed intercourse (TI) or expectant management with or without OH, or following IUI treatment with OH compared to IUI in a natural cycle.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 17 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors for missing or unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI with TI or expectant management, both in stimulated or natural cycles, or IUI in stimulated cycles with IUI in natural cycles in couples with unexplained subfertility.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. Primary review outcomes were live birth rate and multiple pregnancy rate.
MAIN RESULTS
We include 15 trials with 2068 women. The evidence was of very low to moderate quality. The main limitation was very serious imprecision. IUI in a natural cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a natural cycle It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a natural cycle improves live birth rate compared to treatment with expectant management in a natural cycle (odds ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.78; 1 RCT, 334 women; low-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with expectant management in a natural cycle to be 16%, that of IUI in a natural cycle would be between 15% and 34%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a natural cycle reduces multiple pregnancy rates compared to control (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.53; 1 RCT, 334 women; low-quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a stimulated cycle It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle improves live birth rates compared to treatment with TI in a stimulated cycle (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.88; 2 RCTs, 208 women; I = 72%; low-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of achieving a live birth with TI in a stimulated cycle was 26%, the chance with IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 23% and 50%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle reduces multiple pregnancy rates compared to control (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.87; 4 RCTs, 316 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a natural cycle In couples with a low prediction score of natural conception, treatment with IUI combined with clomiphene citrate or letrozole probably results in a higher live birth rate compared to treatment with expectant management in a natural cycle (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.00 to 10.01; 1 RCT; 201 women; moderate-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with expectant management in a natural cycle was 9%, the chance of a live birth with IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 17% and 50%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle results in a lower multiple pregnancy rate compared to control (OR 3.01, 95% CI 0.47 to 19.28; 2 RCTs, 454 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). IUI in a natural cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a stimulated cycle Treatment with IUI in a natural cycle probably results in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with expectant management in a stimulated cycle (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.44; 1 RCT, 342 women: moderate-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with expectant management in a stimulated cycle was 13%, the chance of a live birth with IUI in a natural cycle would be between 14% and 34%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a natural cycle results in a lower multiple pregnancy rate compared to control (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.90; 1 RCT, 342 women; low-quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus IUI in a natural cycle Treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle may result in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with IUI in a natural cycle (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.50; 4 RCTs, 396 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with IUI in a natural cycle was 14%, the chance of a live birth with IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 17% and 36%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle results in a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared to control (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 78.27; 2 RCTs, 65 women; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to insufficient data, it is uncertain whether treatment with IUI with or without OH compared to timed intercourse or expectant management with or without OH improves cumulative live birth rates with acceptable multiple pregnancy rates in couples with unexplained subfertility. However, treatment with IUI with OH probably results in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to expectant management without OH in couples with a low prediction score of natural conception. Similarly, treatment with IUI in a natural cycle probably results in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with timed intercourse with OH. Treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle may result in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with IUI in a natural cycle.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Coitus; Female; Fertile Period; Fertility Agents, Female; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Male; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 32124980
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub6 -
Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are detectable in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register (8 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to 12 October 2014), EMBASE (inception to 12 October 2014), CINAHL (inception to 11 October 2014) and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from January 2013 to October 2014) and we contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised comparisons between operative hysteroscopy versus control in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or undergoing IUI, IVF or ICSI and suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by ultrasonography, saline infusion/gel instillation sonography, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
We retrieved 12 randomised trials possibly addressing the research questions. Only two studies (309 women) met the inclusion criteria. Neither reported the primary outcomes of live birth or procedure related complications. In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the intervention group treated with hysteroscopic myomectomy and the control group having regular fertility-oriented intercourse during 12 months for the outcome of clinical pregnancy. A large clinical benefit with hysteroscopic myomectomy cannot be excluded: if 21% of women with fibroids achieve a clinical pregnancy having timed intercourse only, the evidence suggests that 39% of women (95% CI 21% to 58%) will achieve a successful outcome following the hysteroscopic removal of the fibroids (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17, P = 0.06, 94 women, very low quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference between the comparison groups for the outcome of miscarriage (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.85, P = 0.50, 30 clinical pregnancies in 94 women, very low quality evidence). The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI can increase the chance of a clinical pregnancy compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy: if 28% of women achieve a clinical pregnancy with a simple diagnostic hysteroscopy, the evidence suggests that 63% of women (95% CI 50% to 76%) will achieve a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96, P < 0.00001, 204 women, moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A large benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the chance of clinical pregnancy in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility cannot be excluded. The hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. More randomised studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic removal of suspected endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.
Topics: Coitus; Endometrium; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Leiomyoma; Polyps; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tissue Adhesions; Uterine Diseases; Uterus
PubMed: 25701429
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub3 -
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Sep 2015Over the past years, a growing number of countries have legislated open-identity donation, in which donor-conceived offspring are given access to the donor's identity... (Review)
Review
Over the past years, a growing number of countries have legislated open-identity donation, in which donor-conceived offspring are given access to the donor's identity once the child has reached maturity. It is held that donor anonymity creates identity problems for such children similar to the "genealogical bewilderment" described within the adoption context. The study of the social and psychological effects of open-identity donation is still very much in its infancy, but what has been left unquestioned is whether (and to what extent) offering access to the donor's name and address is an adequate response to such effects. This study has two goals: First, we aim to provide a systematic review of the reasons why donor-conceived (DC) offspring want to know the identity of their sperm donor. Second, we examine to what extent the provision of donor-identifying information can satisfy the reasons mentioned. The most important motivations appear to be: (1) to avoid medical risks and consanguineous relationships; (2) to satisfy curiosity; (3) to learn more about the self or to complete one's identity; (4) to learn more about what kind of person the donor is (biographical information, why he donated, etc.); (5) to form a relationship with the donor and/or his family; and (6) to learn about one's ancestry/genealogy. Our analysis shows that for nearly all of these reasons access to the donor's identity is not necessary. In those cases where it is, moreover, donor identification is not sufficient. What is really needed is (extended) contact with the donor, rather than the mere provision of his name.
Topics: Child; Disclosure; Female; Humans; Information Seeking Behavior; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Motivation; Parents; Pedigree; Reproduction; Spermatozoa; Tissue Donors
PubMed: 24996630
DOI: 10.1007/s11673-014-9550-3 -
Reproductive Biomedicine Online Jan 2010The present study is based on a PubMed search and compares the clinical validity of classical semen parameters (CSP) and the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
The present study is based on a PubMed search and compares the clinical validity of classical semen parameters (CSP) and the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) in different clinical contexts. The PubMed database was searched using keywords on the sperm diagnostic test for pregnancy in three clinical scenarios: (i) couples attempting to conceive; (ii) couples who had been attempting to conceive for 12months without success; and (iii) couples treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI). There was a considerable heterogeneity among the studies included. For couples attempting to conceive following a SCSA that produced an abnormal result, the likelihood of male factor infertility ranged from a pre-test value of 7.5% to a post-test value of 32.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.7-54.5], while after CSP with an abnormal result, the post-test probability was 17.3% (95% CI 11.8-24.5). For a pre-test prevalence of male factor infertility of 50%, the post-test probability of male factor infertility after an abnormal test is very similar for both SCSA and CSP. In couples treated with IUI, the clinical validity of SCSA is higher than that of sperm morphology alone, but not enough to introduce SCSA as a test in male infertility work-up.
Topics: Chromatin; Female; Humans; Infertility, Male; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Semen Analysis; Spermatozoa
PubMed: 20158996
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.10.024 -
Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) Oct 2003IVF is an accepted treatment for unexplained infertility. The objective of this review was to determine whether, for unexplained infertility, IVF improves the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
IVF is an accepted treatment for unexplained infertility. The objective of this review was to determine whether, for unexplained infertility, IVF improves the probability of live birth compared with: (i) expectant management; (ii) clomiphene citrate (CC); (iii) intrauterine insemination (IUI); (iv) IUI with controlled ovarian stimulation; and (v) gamete intra-Fallopian transfer (GIFT).
METHODS
This was based on a Cochrane review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of IVF with expectant management, CC, IUI with or without controlled ovarian stimulation and GIFT were included. Patients included couples with unexplained infertility. Live birth rate per woman/couple was the main outcome measure.
RESULTS
Nine RCT were identified. Five RCTs were included in the final meta-analysis. There were no comparative data for CC and live birth rates for expectant management or GIFT. There was no significant difference in clinical pregnancy rates between IVF and expectant management. There was no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF and IUI either without (OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.36) or with (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.42) ovarian stimulation. Clinical pregnancy rates with IVF were significantly higher compared with GIFT (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.22) as were the multiple pregnancy rates (OR 6.25, 95% CI 1.70 to 23.00). Clinical heterogeneity was present among the studies. There was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
The effectiveness of IVF in unexplained infertility remains unproven. Larger trials with adequate power are warranted.
Topics: Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 14507813
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deg332