-
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and... Jan 2014To evaluate the efficacy of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone in women undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the efficacy of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone in women undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI).
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing supplementation of luteal phase with vaginal progesterone among women undergoing IUI versus a control group were included. The main outcome assessed was live birth rate.
RESULTS
Five RCT met the inclusion criteria. In all 1,271 patients were included (951 IUI cycles in the progesterone group, 935 in the control group). Women treated with vaginal progesterone achieved significantly higher live birth rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.94, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.36 to 2.77,), and clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.41, 95 % CI 1.14 to 1.76) as compared with controls. In the subgroup analysis per stimulation protocol, this beneficial effect of receiving progesterone was only observed in the group stimulated with gonadotropins (RR 2.28, 95 % CI 1.49 to 3.51), compared to the group stimulated with clomiphene citrate (CC) (RR 1.30, 95 % CI 0.68 to 2.50). No differences were observed in the miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates.
CONCLUSIONS
The supplementation of luteal phase with vaginal progesterone significantly increases live birth among women undergoing IUI when receiving gonadotropins for ovulation induction. Women receiving CC to induce ovulation do not seem to benefit from this treatment.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Female; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Luteal Phase; Male; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24189966
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-013-0127-6 -
Fertility and Sterility Nov 2013To evaluate the effect of luteal phase P support after ovulation induction IUI. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of luteal phase P support after ovulation induction IUI.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Undergoing ovulation induction IUI.
INTERVENTION(S)
Any form of exogenous P in ovulation induction IUI cycles.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Clinical pregnancy and live birth.
RESULT(S)
Five trials were identified that met inclusion criteria and comprised 1,298 patients undergoing 1,938 cycles. Clinical pregnancy (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.98) and live birth (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.21-3.67) were more likely in P-supplemented patients. These findings persisted in analyses evaluating per IUI cycle, per patient, and first cycle only data. In subgroup analysis, patients receiving gonadotropins for ovulation induction had the most increase in clinical pregnancy with P support (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20-2.6). Conversely, patients receiving clomiphene citrate (CC) for ovulation induction showed no difference in clinical pregnancy with P support (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.47-1.67).
CONCLUSION(S)
Progesterone luteal phase support may be of benefit to patients undergoing ovulation induction with gonadotropins in IUI cycles. Progesterone support did not benefit patients undergoing ovulation induction with CC, suggesting a potential difference in endogenous luteal phase function depending on the method of ovulation induction.
Topics: Clomiphene; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Luteal Phase; Male; Odds Ratio; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23876537
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.06.034 -
Human Reproduction Update 2013BACKGROUND In recent years, changes in attitudes towards (non-)disclosure of donor conception to offspring and/or others have been observed. Studies have started to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND In recent years, changes in attitudes towards (non-)disclosure of donor conception to offspring and/or others have been observed. Studies have started to identify possible factors that contribute to these changes that are relevant for clinics, counsellors and policy-makers in their approach to the disclosure process. The aim of this systematic review was to integrate the existing knowledge on factors that influence the disclosure decision-making process of donor conception to offspring and/or others in heterosexual couples, and to discuss future trends and concerns. METHODS A bibliographic search of English, French, German and Dutch language publications of five computerized databases was undertaken from January 1980 to March 2012. A Cochrane Database systematic review approach was applied. RESULTS A total of 43 studies met the inclusion criteria, and these represented 36 study populations. The review shows that the parents' disclosure decision-making process is influenced by a myriad of intrapersonal, interpersonal, social and family life cycle features. These influences were not necessarily independent but rather were interwoven and overlapping. Theoretical frameworks have not yet been used to explain how the different factors influenced disclosure. Methodological limitations of the original publications (lack of information, several factors included in one study, descriptive character of studies) and this review (multiple factors that may interact) which hindered integration of the findings are outlined. CONCLUSIONS Intrapersonal, interpersonal, social and family life cycle factors influence the parents' disclosure decision-making process. The review has demonstrated the need for the development of a theoretical model to enable integration of the identified influencing factors. Further research is needed on the role of stigma, confrontation efficacy, extended family, donor siblings' characteristics, cross-border treatment, culture, gender and socio-educational factors.
Topics: Attitude; Decision Making; Disclosure; Humans; Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous; Male; Oocyte Donation; Oocytes; Parents; Spermatozoa; Tissue Donors
PubMed: 23814103
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmt018 -
Asian Journal of Andrology Jul 2013Male factor infertility affects 30%-50% of infertile couples worldwide, and there is an increasing interest in the optimal management of these patients. In studies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Male factor infertility affects 30%-50% of infertile couples worldwide, and there is an increasing interest in the optimal management of these patients. In studies comparing double and single intrauterine insemination (IUI), a trend towards higher pregnancy rates in couples with male factor infertility was observed. Therefore, we set out to perform a meta-analysis to examine the superiority of double versus single IUI with the male partner's sperm in couples with male factor infertility. An odds ratio (OR) of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for the pregnancy rate. Outcomes were analysed by using the Mantel-Haesel or DerSimonian-Laird model according to the heterogeneity of the results. Overall, five trials involving 1125 IUI cycles were included in the meta-analysis. There was a two-fold increase in pregnancies after a cycle with a double IUI compared with a cycle with a single IUI (OR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.07-3.75; P<0.03). Nevertheless, this result was mainly attributed to the presence of a large trial that weighted as almost 50% in the overall analysis. Sensitivity analysis, excluding this large trial, revealed only a trend towards higher pregnancy rates among double IUI cycles (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 0.59-4.21), but without statistical significance (P=0.20). Our systematic review highlights that the available evidence regarding the use of double IUI in couples with male factor infertility is fragmentary and weak. Although there may be a trend towards higher pregnancy rates when the number of IUIs per cycle is increased, further large and well-designed randomized trials are needed to provide solid evidence to guide current clinical practice.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Infertility, Male; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate
PubMed: 23708457
DOI: 10.1038/aja.2013.4 -
Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2013Observational 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 (6 August 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (T he Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1950 to October 2012), EMBASE (1974 to October 2012), CINAHL (from inception to October 2012) 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 2008 to October 2012) 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 authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
Two studies met the inclusion criteria and neither reported the primary outcomes of live birth and complications from the procedure. In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, there is no evidence of benefit with hysteroscopic myomectomy compared to regular fertility-oriented intercourse during 12 months for clinical pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.2, P = 0.06, 94 women) and miscarriage (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.0, P = 0.47, 94 women) (very low-quality evidence). The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI increases the odds of clinical pregnancy (experimental event rate (EER) 63%) compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy only (control event rate (CER) 28%) (OR 4.4, 95% CI 2.5 to 8.0, P < 0.00001, 204 women, high-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Hysteroscopic myomectomy might increase the odds of clinical pregnancy in women with unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, but the evidence is at present not conclusive. The hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI might 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: 23440838
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2012Intra-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 Review
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 rate.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether, for couples with unexplained subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rate compared with timed intercourse (TI), both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched July 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2011), EMBASE (1980 to July 2011), PsycINFO (1806 to July 2011), SCIsearch and reference lists of articles. Authors of identified studies were contacted for missing or unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Truly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one of the following comparisons were included: IUI versus TI, both in a natural cycle; IUI versus TI, both in a stimulated cycle; IUI in a natural cycle versus IUI in a stimulated cycle; IUI with OH versus TI in a natural cycle; IUI in a natural cycle versus TI with OH. Only couples with unexplained subfertility were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two review authors. Outcomes were extracted and the data were pooled. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were done where possible.
MAIN RESULTS
One trial compared IUI in a natural cycle with expectant management and showed no evidence of increased live births (334 women: odds ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.8). In the six trials where IUI was compared with TI, both in stimulated cycles, there was evidence of an increased chance of pregnancy after IUI (six RCTs, 517 women: OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.50). A significant increase in live birth rate was found for women where IUI with OH was compared with IUI in a natural cycle (four RCTs, 396 women: OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.50). However the trials provided insufficient data to investigate the impact of IUI with or without OH on several important outcomes including live births, multiple pregnancies, miscarriage and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation. There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy rate for IUI with OH compared with TI in a natural cycle (two RCTs, total 304 women: data not pooled). The final comparison of IUI in natural cycle to TI with OH showed a marginal, significant increase in live births for IUI (one RCT, 342 women: OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.44).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence that IUI with OH increases the live birth rate compared to IUI alone. The likelihood of pregnancy was also increased for treatment with IUI compared to TI in stimulated cycles. One adequately powered multicentre trial showed no evidence of effect of IUI in natural cycles compared with expectant management. There is insufficient data on multiple pregnancies and other adverse events for treatment with OH. Therefore couples should be fully informed about the risks of IUI and OH as well as alternative treatment options.
Topics: Coitus; Female; Fertile Period; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Male; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 22972053
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2012In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a widely accepted treatment for unexplained infertility (NICE 2004), which affects up to a third of all infertile couples. With estimated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a widely accepted treatment for unexplained infertility (NICE 2004), which affects up to a third of all infertile couples. With estimated live birth rates (LBRs) per cycle varying from 33.1% in women aged under 35 years down to 12.5% in women aged between 40 and 42 years (HFEA 2011), its effectiveness has not been rigorously evaluated in comparison with other treatments. With increasing awareness of the role of expectant management, less-invasive procedures such as intrauterine insemination (IUI), and concerns about multiple pregnancies and costs associated with IVF, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of IVF against other treatment options in couples with unexplained infertility.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF compared to expectant management, clomiphene citrate, IUI alone and intrauterine insemination plus controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI+SO).
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched July 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, first quarter), MEDLINE (1970 to July 2011), EMBASE (1985 to July 2011) and reference lists of articles were searched. Relevant conference proceedings were handsearched. Authors were contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. LBR per woman was the primary outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Six RCTs were included in the final analysis. LBR per woman was significantly higher with IVF (45.8%) than expectant management (3.7%) (odds ratio (OR) 22.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37, 1 RCT, 51 women). There were no comparative data for clomiphene citrate. There was no evidence of a significant difference in LBR between IVF and IUI alone (OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.36, 1 RCT, 113 women), 40.7% with IVF versus 25.9% with IUI. In studies comparing IVF versus IUI+SO, LBR per woman did not differ significantly between the groups among treatment-naive women (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.59, 2 RCTs, 234 women) but was significantly higher in a large RCT of women pretreated with IUI + clomiphene citrate (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.63, 1 RCT, 341 women). These three studies could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity (I(2) = 84%). There was no evidence of a significant difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) or ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) between the two treatments (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.29, 3 RCTs, 351 women; OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.49, 1 RCT, 118 women, respectively).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
IVF may be more effective than IUI+SO. Due to paucity of data from RCTs the effectiveness of IVF for unexplained infertility relative to expectant management, clomiphene citrate and IUI alone remains unproven. Adverse events and the costs associated with these interventions have not been adequately assessed.
Topics: Clomiphene; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer; Humans; Infertility, Female; Insemination, Artificial; Live Birth; Ovulation Induction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 22513911
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003357.pub3 -
Fertility and Sterility May 2011To compare the pregnancy rates (PRs) in intrauterine insemination (IUI) using recombinant FSH (rec-FSH) or highly purified urinary FSH (HP-FSH). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the pregnancy rates (PRs) in intrauterine insemination (IUI) using recombinant FSH (rec-FSH) or highly purified urinary FSH (HP-FSH).
DESIGN
Systematic review and metaanalysis.
SETTING
University hospital.
PATIENT(S)
None.
INTERVENTION(S)
Electronic and manual searches.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
PR, per first cycle PR and per woman PR.
RESULT(S)
Six randomized trials (713 women, 1,581 cycles) were identified. In three the same doses of rec-FSH and HP-FSH were used ("equal dose" group), whereas in the other three the ratio HP-FSH:rec-FSH dose was 1.5. The global metaanalysis showed no differences in PRs. The PR per cycle was similar across the 1.5 ratio group (14.51% vs. 14.93%; relative risk [RR], 0.970; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.687-1.369). However, the metaanalysis of the equal dose group, showed differences in the PR in favor of rec-FSH (16.36% vs. 12.31%; RR, 1.394; 95% CI, 1.004-1.936). Per woman PR analysis showed similar results (41.44% vs. 31.55%; RR, 1.273; 95% CI, 0.987-1.643). Per first cycle PR analysis showed a similar trend, although the difference did not reach significance (RR, 1.434; 95% CI, 0.934-2.203).
CONCLUSION(S)
Rec-FSH was associated with higher per cycle PR than HP-FSH, when used at the same dose, whereas the PR were similar when the dose of rec-FSH was 50% lower.
Topics: Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Humans; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Uterus
PubMed: 21429486
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.030 -
Systems Biology in Reproductive Medicine Feb 2011There has been an increase in the use of sperm DNA and chromatin integrity tests in the evaluation of the infertile man with the hypothesis that these tests may better... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There has been an increase in the use of sperm DNA and chromatin integrity tests in the evaluation of the infertile man with the hypothesis that these tests may better diagnose infertility and predict reproductive outcomes. This review discusses the etiology of sperm DNA damage, briefly describing the tests of sperm DNA damage, and evaluates the relationship between sperm DNA damage and reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the literature allows us to conclude that sperm DNA damage is associated with lower natural, intra-uterine insemination (IUI), and in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancy rates. Studies to date have not shown a clear association between sperm DNA and chromatin defects and pregnancy outcomes after intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). However, we cannot exclude the possibility that very high levels of DNA damage will impact on ICSI outcomes. In couples undergoing IVF or ICSI, there is evidence to show that sperm DNA damage is associated with an increased risk of pregnancy loss. A limitation of this systematic review and meta-analysis is that it does not address the heterogeneity of the individual study characteristics. Although the clinical utility of tests of sperm DNA damage remains to be firmly established, the data suggest that there is clinical value in testing couples prior to assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs IUI, IVF, and ICSI) and in those couples with recurrent miscarriages. Additional, well-designed prospective studies are needed before testing becomes a routine part of patient care.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Chromatin; DNA Damage; DNA Fragmentation; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Infertility, Male; Insemination, Artificial; Male; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Spermatozoa
PubMed: 21208147
DOI: 10.3109/19396368.2010.515704 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2010Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a recommended treatment for unexplained subfertility. The treatment involves the direct delivery of spermatozoa into the uterus using... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a recommended treatment for unexplained subfertility. The treatment involves the direct delivery of spermatozoa into the uterus using a catheter. Many factors influence the success of IUI treatments including the type of catheter used.
OBJECTIVES
To compare pregnancy-related outcomes from women undergoing intrauterine insemination cycles performed with either soft or firm catheters in subfertile women.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the following databases (inception to July 2010) with no language restrictions: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS and OpenSigle. We also searched the conference abstracts in the ISI Web of Knowledge and Google, and conference abstracts and citation lists of relevant publications, reviews and included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only truly randomised controlled studies of women who underwent IUI using either soft or firm catheter types and reporting data on rates of live birth, clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ease of introduction of the catheter, occurrence of trauma, or woman's discomfort.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors screened the titles and abstracts of 78 potentially eligible studies and excluded 66 of these. We critically appraised the full texts of twelve studies and excluded three studies. Nine publications of six studies were remaining. We extracted data from the six remaining studies and there were no disagreements. We assessed risk of bias and pooled dichotomous data and presented the Peto odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
There was no evidence of a significant effect difference regarding the choice of catheter type for any of the outcomes. Three studies reported live birth rates (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35) with a translated OR percentages (1.3, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.1) while six studies reported clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.35 ). Two studies were pooled for the analysis of miscarriages (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.22). Results of other adverse outcomes were reported per cycle and were therefore not pooled.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the evidence available in this review, no specific conclusion can be made regarding the superiority of one catheter class over another. Further adequately powered studies reporting on clinical outcomes (e.g. live birth rate) are required. Additional outcomes such as miscarriage rates and measures of discomfort need to be reported.
Topics: Catheters; Equipment Design; Female; Humans; Infertility; Insemination, Artificial; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 21069687
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006225.pub2