-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2000Although intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is widely used, however its effectiveness remains a matter of debate. Although IUI is less invasive and expensive than IVF or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is widely used, however its effectiveness remains a matter of debate. Although IUI is less invasive and expensive than IVF or GIFT, it should only be applied if the probability of conception is improved significantly as compared to the natural chance of conceiving. To increase the number of available oocytes at the site of fertilization, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) can be applied in conjunction with IUI. Uncontrolled studies suggest a beneficial effect of COH in combination with IUI, also when a male factor is present. To be able to draw firm conclusions whether IUI and/or COH improve the probability of conception, several comparisons should be performed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine for male subfertility whether intrauterine insemination (IUI) improves the probability of conception compared with timed intercourse and whether the addition of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation influences the results.
SEARCH STRATEGY
1. The specialist database of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. 2. Medline search. 3. Embase search. 4. DDFU search. 5. BIOSIS search. 6. SCIsearch. 7. Manual searching of references mentioned in the obtained studies. 8. Personal communication and write letters to experts (14) in the field. 9. Abstracts of The American Society for Reproductive Medicine and European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology Meetings. When important information is lacking from the original publications the authors will be contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials only.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Independently by the first 2 authors: 1. Trial design characteristics. 2. Baseline characteristics of participants. 3. Types of intervention. 4. Outcomes where pregnancy is the outcome of main interest. Number of multiple pregnancies and number of cycles with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) are secondary outcomes. Analysis of agreement between the two observers was determined for the following items: inclusion or exclusion of a trial, method of randomization, definition of male subfertility, design of the trial, number of pregnancies and completed cycles. Sensitivity analysis is performed.
MAIN RESULTS
Seventeen trials fulfilled the selection criteria for this review and were included. Four trials are pending. Crude agreement concerning inclusion or exclusion of trials occurred for 41 of 43 (95%) trials reviewed (kappa 0.90). The included trials comprised 3,662 completed cycles. In natural cycles intrauterine insemination (IUI) significantly improved the probability of conception compared with timed intercourse (TI) (combined odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals: 2.43, 1.54 - 3.83). In cycles with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) IUI significantly improved the probability of conception also compared with TI (combined odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals: 2.14, 1.30 - 3.51). Despite clinical heterogeneity, these results are based on strong evidence. Intrauterine insemination in cycles with COH improved the probability of conception compared with IUI in natural cycles but significance was not reached (combined odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals: 1.79, 0.98 - 3.25). Comparing IUI in COH-cycles with TI in natural cycles the first treatment modality significantly improved the probability of conception (combined odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals: 6.23, 2.35 - 16.52).
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Intra-uterine insemination offers couples with male subfertility benefit over timed intercourse, both in natural cycles and in cycles with COH. In the case of a severe semen defect (with more than 1 million motile sperm after semen preparation and no triple sperm defect) IUI in natural cycles should be the treatment of first choice. The value of COH need to be further investigated in RCTs. Mild ovarian hyperstimulation with gonadotrophins is advised in cases with less sever
Topics: Coitus; Female; Fertilization; Humans; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Ovulation Induction
PubMed: 10796711
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000360 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2007Intrauterine insemination (IUI) combined with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) has been demonstrated to be an effective form of treatment for subfertile couples. Several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intrauterine insemination (IUI) combined with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) has been demonstrated to be an effective form of treatment for subfertile couples. Several ovarian stimulation protocols combined with IUI have been proposed, but it is still not clear which stimulation protocol and which dose is the most cost-effective.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate ovarian stimulation protocols for intrauterine insemination for all indications.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials comparing different ovarian stimulation protocols followed by IUI. We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We searched the electronic databases of MEDLINE (January 1966 to present) and EMBASE (1980 to present).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials only were considered for inclusion in this review. Trials comparing different ovarian stimulation protocols combined with IUI were selected and reviewed in detail.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent review authors independently assess trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty three trials involving 3957 women were included. There were 11 comparisons in this review. Pregnancy rates are reported here since results of live birth rates were lacking. Seven studies (n = 556) were pooled comparing gonadotrophins with anti-oestrogens showing significant higher pregnancy rates with gonadotrophins (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.7). Five studies (n = 313) compared anti-oestrogens with aromatase inhibitors reporting no significant difference (OR 1.2 95% CI 0.64 to 2.1). The same could be concluded comparing different types of gonadotrophins (9 studies included, n = 576). Four studies (n = 391) reported the effect of adding a GnRH agonist which did not improve pregnancy rates (OR 0.98 95% CI 0.6 to 1.6), although it resulted in significant higher multiple pregnancy rates (OR 2.9 95% CI 1.0 to 8). Data of three studies (n = 299) showed no convincing evidence of adding a GnRH antagonist to gonadotrophins (OR 1.5 95% CI 0.83 to 2.8). The results of two studies (n = 297) reported no evidence of benefit in doubling the dose of gonadotrophins (OR 1.2 95% 0.67 to 1.9) although the multiple pregnancy rates and OHSS rates were increased. For the remaining five comparisons only one or none studies were included.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Robust evidence is lacking but based on the available results gonadotrophins might be the most effective drugs when IUI is combined with ovarian hyperstimulation. When gonadotrophins are applied it might be done on a daily basis. When gonadotrophins are used for ovarian stimulation low dose protocols are advised since pregnancy rates do not differ from pregnancy rates which result from high dose regimen, whereas the chances to encounter negative effects from ovarian stimulation such as multiples and OHSS are limited with low dose gonadotrophins. Further research is needed for each comparison made.
Topics: Estrogen Antagonists; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Gonadotropins; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Ovulation Induction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 17443584
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005356.pub2 -
Fertility and Sterility Feb 2020To compare live birth and multiple gestation in patients diagnosed with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination after ovarian stimulation (OS-IUI)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare live birth and multiple gestation in patients diagnosed with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination after ovarian stimulation (OS-IUI) with oral medications versus gonadotropins.
DESIGN
Systemic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Patients undergoing OS-IUI for treatment of unexplained infertility.
INTERVENTION(S)
Clomiphene, letrozole, or gonadotropins for OS-IUI.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Live birth and multiple gestation.
RESULT(S)
Eight total trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria and comprised 2,989 patients undergoing 6,590 cycles. One study reported a significant increase in both live births and multiple gestations with the use of gonadotropins, two studies found an increased likelihood of live birth with the use of gonadotropins, and two studies found an increased risk of twins with gonadotropins. The relative risk of live birth in subjects receiving gonadotropins was 1.09. The relative risk of multiple gestation in subjects receiving gonadotropins was 1.06. Clinical pregnancy was higher in protocols with lax cancellation policies or higher gonadotropin doses, with subsequent increased relative risks of multiple gestations of 1.20 and 1.15, respectively. Singleton births per subject were similar between the two groups. The results did not change in per-protocol, per cycle, or fixed-effect model sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION(S)
For every birth gained with the use of gonadotropins, a similar increased risk of multiple gestation occurs. The randomized data do not support the use of gonadotropin for OS-IUI in women with unexplained infertility.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
Prospero CRD4201911998.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Clomiphene; Female; Fertility; Fertility Agents, Female; Gonadotropins; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Letrozole; Live Birth; Ovary; Ovulation; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 31973903
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.09.042 -
AIDS and Behavior Sep 2018We conducted a systematic review of safer conception strategies (SCS) for HIV-affected couples in sub-Saharan Africa to inform evidence-based safer conception...
We conducted a systematic review of safer conception strategies (SCS) for HIV-affected couples in sub-Saharan Africa to inform evidence-based safer conception interventions. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched fifteen electronic databases using the following inclusion criteria: SCS research in HIV-affected couples; published after 2007; in sub-Saharan Africa; primary research; peer-reviewed; and addressed a primary topic of interest (SCS availability, feasibility, and acceptability, and/or education and promotion). Researchers independently reviewed each study for eligibility using a standardized tool. We categorize studies by their topic area. We identified 41 studies (26 qualitative and 15 quantitative) that met inclusion criteria. Reviewed SCSs included: antiretroviral therapy (ART), pre-exposure prophylaxis, timed unprotected intercourse, manual/self-insemination, sperm washing, and voluntary male medical circumcision (VMMC). SCS were largely unavailable outside of research settings, except for general availability (i.e., not specifically for safer conception) of ART and VMMC. SCS acceptability was impacted by low client and provider knowledge about safer conception services, stigma around HIV-affected couples wanting children, and difficulty with HIV disclosure in HIV-affected couples. Couples expressed desire to learn more about SCS; however, provider training, patient education, SCS promotions, and integration of reproductive health and HIV services remain limited. Studies of provider training and couple-based education showed improvements in communication around fertility intentions and SCS knowledge. SCS are not yet widely available to HIV-affected African couples. Successful implementation of SCS requires that providers receive training on effective SCS and provide couple-based safer conception counseling to improve disclosure and communication around fertility intentions and reproductive health.
Topics: Africa South of the Sahara; Anti-Retroviral Agents; Circumcision, Male; Counseling; Disclosure; Female; Fertility; Fertilization; HIV Infections; Health Services Accessibility; Heterosexuality; Humans; Insemination, Artificial; Intention; Male; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; Preconception Care; Reproductive Behavior; Reproductive Health; Sexual Partners; Social Stigma
PubMed: 29869184
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-018-2170-x -
Human Reproduction Update 2002Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a frequently indicated therapeutic modality in infertility. Here, a systematic review of the literature was performed to examine the...
Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a frequently indicated therapeutic modality in infertility. Here, a systematic review of the literature was performed to examine the current status of clinical and laboratory methodologies used in IUI and the impact of female and male factors on pregnancy success. Emphasis was centred in questioning the following: (i) the value of IUI against timed intercourse; (ii) IUI application with or without controlled ovarian hyperstimulation; (iii) timing and frequency of IUI; and (iv) impact of various parameters (male/female) on the prediction of pregnancy outcome. The odds of multiple pregnancy occurrence and its risk factors, as well as the cost-effectiveness of IUI treatment compared with more complex assisted reproductive technologies are discussed. A computerized literature search was performed including Medline and the Cochrane library, as well as a crossover search from retrieved papers. It is concluded that although IUI is a successful contemporary treatment for appropriately selected cases of female and/or male infertility, further research is needed through well-designed studies to improve the methodologies currently utilized. Importantly, the clinical management of the infertile couple should be performed in an expedited manner taking into consideration the age of the woman, the presence of multifactorial infertility and cost-effectiveness of the available treatment alternatives.
Topics: Female; Humans; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy, Multiple; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Uterus
PubMed: 12206471
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/8.4.373 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021In subfertile couples, couples who have tried to conceive for at least one year, intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is one of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In subfertile couples, couples who have tried to conceive for at least one year, intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is one of the treatment modalities that can be offered. When IUI is performed a second IUI in the same cycle might add to the chances of conceiving. In a previous update of this review in 2010 it was shown that double IUI increases pregnancy rates when compared to single IUI. Since 2010, different clinical trials have been published with differing conclusions about whether double IUI increases pregnancy rates compared to single IUI.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of double intrauterine insemination (IUI) compared to single IUI in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in July 2020 and LILACS, Google scholar and Epistemonikos in February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled, parallel trials of double versus single IUIs in stimulated cycles in subfertile couples.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified in nine studies involving subfertile women. The evidence was of low quality; the main limitations were unclear risk of bias, inconsistent results for some outcomes and imprecision, due to small trials with imprecise results. We are uncertain whether double IUI improves live birth rate compared to single IUI (odds ratio (OR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.88; I = 29%; studies = 3, participants = 468; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth following single IUI is 16%, the chance of live birth following double IUI would be between 12% and 27%. Performing a sensitivity analysis restricted to only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with low risk of selection bias showed similar results. We are uncertain whether double IUI reduces miscarriage rate compared to single IUI (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.24; I = 0%; studies = 6, participants = 2363; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that chance of miscarriage following single IUI is 1.5% and the chance following double IUI would be between 1.5% and 5%. The reported clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised may increase with double IUI group (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.86; I = 34%; studies = 9, participants = 2716; low quality evidence). This result should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality of the evidence and the moderate inconsistency. The evidence suggests that the chance of a pregnancy following single IUI is 14% and the chance following double IUI would be between 16% and 23%. We are uncertain whether double IUI affects multiple pregnancy rate compared to single IUI (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.56; I = 8%; studies = 5; participants = 2203; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that chance of multiple pregnancy following single IUI is 0.7% and the chance following double IUI would be between 0.85% and 3.7%. We are uncertain whether double IUI has an effect on ectopic pregnancy rate compared to single IUI (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.28; I = 0%; studies = 4, participants = 1048; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that the chance of an ectopic pregnancy following single IUI is 0.8% and the chance following double IUI would be between 0.3% and 3.2%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our main analysis, of which the evidence is low quality, shows that we are uncertain if double IUI improves live birth and reduces miscarriage compared to single IUI. Our sensitivity analysis restricted to studies of low risk of selection bias for both outcomes is consistent with the main analysis. Clinical pregnancy rate may increase in the double IUI group, but this should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. We are uncertain whether double IUI has an effect on multiple pregnancy rate and ectopic pregnancy rate compared to single IUI.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Bias; Confidence Intervals; Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Insemination, Artificial, Homologous; Live Birth; Male; Odds Ratio; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retreatment; Selection Bias
PubMed: 34260059
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003854.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Intrauterine insemination (IUI), combined with ovarian stimulation (OS), has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for infertile couples. Several agents for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Intrauterine insemination (IUI), combined with ovarian stimulation (OS), has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for infertile couples. Several agents for ovarian stimulation, combined with IUI, have been proposed, but it is still not clear which agents for stimulation are the most effective. This is an update of the review, first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of agents for ovarian stimulation for intrauterine insemination in infertile ovulatory women.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trial registers from their inception to November 2020. We performed reference checking and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included truly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different agents for ovarian stimulation combined with IUI for infertile ovulatory women concerning couples with unexplained infertility. mild male factor infertility and minimal to mild endometriosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
In this updated review, we have included a total of 82 studies, involving 12,614 women. Due to the multitude of comparisons between different agents for ovarian stimulation, we highlight the seven most often reported here. Gonadotropins versus anti-oestrogens (13 studies) For live birth, the results of five studies were pooled and showed a probable improvement in the cumulative live birth rate for gonadotropins compared to anti-oestrogens (odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.79; I = 30%; 5 studies, 1924 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following anti-oestrogens is assumed to be 22.8%, the chance following gonadotropins would be between 23.7% and 34.6%. The pooled effect of seven studies revealed that we are uncertain whether gonadotropins lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared with anti-oestrogens (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.17; I = 58%; 7 studies, 2139 participants; low-certainty evidence). Aromatase inhibitors versus anti-oestrogens (8 studies) One study reported live birth rates for this comparison. We are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors improve live birth rate compared with anti-oestrogens (OR 0.75, CI 95% 0.51 to 1.11; 1 study, 599 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following anti-oestrogens is 23.4%, the chance following aromatase inhibitors would be between 13.5% and 25.3%. The results of pooling four studies revealed that we are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors compared with anti-oestrogens lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate (OR 1.28, CI 95% 0.61 to 2.68; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1000 participants; low-certainty evidence). Gonadotropins with GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) agonist versus gonadotropins alone (4 studies) No data were available for live birth. The pooled effect of two studies revealed that we are uncertain whether gonadotropins with GnRH agonist lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared to gonadotropins alone (OR 2.53, 95% CI 0.82 to 7.86; I = 0; 2 studies, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Gonadotropins with GnRH antagonist versus gonadotropins alone (14 studies) Three studies reported live birth rate per couple, and we are uncertain whether gonadotropins with GnRH antagonist improve live birth rate compared to gonadotropins (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.52 to 4.39; I = 81%; 3 studies, 419 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following gonadotropins alone is 25.7%, the chance following gonadotropins combined with GnRH antagonist would be between 15.2% and 60.3%. We are also uncertain whether gonadotropins combined with GnRH antagonist lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared with gonadotropins alone (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.28; I = 0%; 10 studies, 2095 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Gonadotropins with anti-oestrogens versus gonadotropins alone (2 studies) Neither of the studies reported data for live birth rate. We are uncertain whether gonadotropins combined with anti-oestrogens lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared with gonadotropins alone, based on one study (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.1; 1 study, 230 participants; low-certainty evidence). Aromatase inhibitors versus gonadotropins (6 studies) Two studies revealed that aromatase inhibitors may decrease live birth rate compared with gonadotropins (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.71; I=0%; 2 studies, 651 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following gonadotropins alone is 31.9%, the chance of live birth following aromatase inhibitors would be between 13.7% and 25%. We are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors compared with gonadotropins lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.06 to 8.17; I=77%; 3 studies, 731 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins versus anti-oestrogens with gonadotropins (8 studies) We are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors combined with gonadotropins improve live birth rate compared with anti-oestrogens plus gonadotropins (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.3 8 to 2.54; I = 69%; 3 studies, 708 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following anti-oestrogens plus gonadotropins is 13.8%, the chance following aromatase inhibitors plus gonadotropins would be between 5.7% and 28.9%. We are uncertain of the effect of aromatase inhibitors combined with gonadotropins compared to anti-oestrogens combined with gonadotropins on multiple pregnancy rate (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.39 to 4.37; I = 0%; 5 studies, 901 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available results, gonadotropins probably improve cumulative live birth rate compared with anti-oestrogens (moderate-certainty evidence). Gonadotropins may also improve cumulative live birth rate when compared with aromatase inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). From the available data, there is no convincing evidence that aromatase inhibitors lead to higher live birth rates compared to anti-oestrogens. None of the agents compared lead to significantly higher multiple pregnancy rates. Based on low-certainty evidence, there does not seem to be a role for different combined therapies, nor for adding GnRH agonists or GnRH antagonists in IUI programs.
Topics: Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Infertility, Female; Insemination; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Male; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate
PubMed: 34739136
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005356.pub3 -
Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) May 2003This paper is based on a Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, issue 1, 2003 (see www.update- software.com) with permission from The Cochrane Collaboration... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
This paper is based on a Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, issue 1, 2003 (see www.update- software.com) with permission from The Cochrane Collaboration and Update Software. Cochrane reviews are regularly updated as new information becomes available and in response to comments and criticisms, and The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.
BACKGROUND
The objective of this review was to determine, from the best available evidence, the difference in outcome using single versus double intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples.
METHODS
The principles of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group were employed. Randomized controlled trials with a parallel design, comparing single versus double IUI in subfertile couples, would be eligible. The main outcome measures included live birth rate and pregnancy rate per couple (and per cycle).
RESULTS
Three studies involving 386 women were included. The results of pregnancy rate per couple, of two studies showed no significant effect of using double insemination [Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-2.70]. The results of pregnancy rate per cycle of the included studies favoured double insemination, however this is not an eligible outcome measure.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of two trials, double intrauterine insemination showed no significant benefit over single IUI in the treatment of subfertile couples with partner semen. There are no meaningful data to offer advice on the basis of this review. A randomized controlled trial of single versus double IUI is justified.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Odds Ratio; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 12721166
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deg178 -
Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) Dec 2004The objective of this review was to compare the efficacy of Fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP) with intrauterine insemination (IUI) in the treatment of non-tubal... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The objective of this review was to compare the efficacy of Fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP) with intrauterine insemination (IUI) in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility.
METHODS
The principles of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group were employed. Only randomized controlled studies comparing FSP with IUI were included in this review. The main outcome measures included live birth rates and pregnancy rates per couple.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies were found performing the comparison of interest. Overall six studies involving 474 couples were included in the meta-analysis. One study only assessed live birth rates, which resulted in no difference in outcome between FSP and IUI [odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-3.53]. The results in pregnancy rate per couple revealed no statistically significant difference between FSP and IUI (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.77-4.05). Subgroup analysis revealed that couples suffering from unexplained subfertility clearly benefit from FSP over IUI (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.73-4.78). Excluding studies which used the Foley catheter for tubal perfusion resulted in a significant difference favouring FSP for all indications (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.54-3.80).
CONCLUSIONS
There is firm evidence that FSP gives rise to higher pregnancy rates in couples with unexplained subfertility and should therefore be advised in these couples. For other indications FSP has not been proven more effective compared with IUI. Results showed that the Foley catheter might not be effective for FSP. Future research should focus on comparing different types of catheters.
Topics: Fallopian Tubes; Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Insemination, Artificial, Homologous; Male; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 15550500
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh523 -
Journal of Dairy Science May 2017Presynchronization of cows with 2 injections of prostaglandin administered 14 d apart (Presynch-Ovsynch) is a widely adopted procedure to increase pregnancy per... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evaluation of prostaglandin F versus prostaglandin F plus gonadotropin-releasing hormone as Presynch methods preceding an Ovsynch in lactating dairy cows: A meta-analysis.
Presynchronization of cows with 2 injections of prostaglandin administered 14 d apart (Presynch-Ovsynch) is a widely adopted procedure to increase pregnancy per artificial insemination (P/AI) at first service. Recently, a presynchronization protocol including GnRH and PGF (Double-Ovsynch; GnRH, 7 d, PGF, 3 d, GnRH) followed 7 d later by an Ovsynch protocol was introduced to overcome the limitations of PGF-based protocols for presynchronization of anovular cows and to precisely set up cows on d 7 of the estrous cycle when the Ovsynch is initiated. A systematic review of the literature and a meta-analytical assessment was performed with the objective to compare the reproductive performance of lactating dairy cows presynchronized with these 2 protocols for the first timed AI (TAI) considering parity-specific effects. A fixed or a random effects meta-analysis was used based on the heterogeneity among the experimental groups. Reproductive outcomes of interest were P/AI measured on d 32 (28-42) and pregnancy loss between d 32 and 60 (42-74) of gestation. A total of 25 articles with 27 experimental groups from 63 herds including 21,046 cows submitted to first TAI using either a Presynch-Ovsynch or a Double-Ovsynch protocol were reviewed. Results for P/AI were then categorized by parity if available. Information was available for P/AI for 7,400 and 10,999 primiparous and multiparous cows, respectively. Information regarding pregnancy loss was available for 7,477 cows. In the random effects model for all cows, the overall proportion of P/AI was 41.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 39.1-44.3; n = 8,213] and 46.2% (95% CI: 41.9-50.5; n = 12,833) on d 32 after TAI for Presynch-Ovsynch and Double-Ovsynch, respectively. In the random effects model for primiparous cows, the overall proportion of P/AI was 43.4% (95% CI: 36.2-47.7; n = 2,614) and 51.4% (95% CI: 47.4-55.4; n = 4,786) on d 32 after TAI for Presynch-Ovsynch and Double-Ovsynch, respectively. In the random effects model for multiparous cows, the overall proportion of P/AI was 39.2% (95% CI: 36.2-42.3; n = 3,411) and 41.4% (95% CI: 36.4-46.4; n = 7,588) on d 32 after TAI for Presynch-Ovsynch and Double-Ovsynch, respectively. The overall proportion of pregnancy loss was 11.3% (95% CI: 7.6-15.7; n = 3,247) and 11.7% (95% CI: 9.3-14.3; n = 4,230) on d 60 after AI for Presynch-Ovsynch to and Double-Ovsynch, respectively. Substantial heterogeneity existed among the experimental groups regarding P/AI and pregnancy loss. In summary, a benefit was detected for P/AI in primiparous cows presynchronized with a Double-Ovsynch protocol for the first TAI, but this benefit was not observed in multiparous cows.
Topics: Abortion, Veterinary; Animals; Cattle; Dinoprost; Estrus Synchronization; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Insemination, Artificial; Lactation; Progesterone
PubMed: 28318589
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-11956