Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25528596›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Synchronised approach for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples.

Astrid E P Cantineau, Mirjam J Janssen, Ben J Cohlen, Thomas Allersma

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03920514 (Different Timing of Intrauterine Insemination and Pregnancy Outcome in Patient With Unexplained Infertility), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03920514 phase4unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Different Timing of Intrauterine Insemination and Pregnancy Outcome in Patient With Unexplained Infertility :A Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorSohag UniversityRan2019 to 2019Enrolled80ConditionsIntrauterine InseminationArmshCG
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Synchronised approach for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Intrauterine insemination timing models-LH can only take you so far.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Astrid E P CantineauDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre, Groningen, Netherlands.
Mirjam J Janssen
Ben J Cohlen
Thomas Allersma

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn many countries intrauterine insemination (IUI) is the treatment of first choice for a subfertile couple when the infertility work up reveals an ovulatory cycle, at least one open Fallopian tube and sufficient spermatozoa. The final goal of this treatment is to achieve a pregnancy and deliver a healthy (singleton) live birth. The probability of conceiving with IUI depends on various factors including age of the couple, type of subfertility, ovarian stimulation and the timing of insemination. IUI should logically be performed around the moment of ovulation. Since spermatozoa and oocytes have only limited survival time correct timing of the insemination is essential. As it is not known which technique of timing for IUI results in the best treatment outcome, we compared different techniques for timing IUI and different time intervals.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of different synchronisation methods in natural and stimulated cycles for IUI in subfertile couples. SEARCH

methodsWe searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials of the timing of IUI. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (1974 to October 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2014) and PsycINFO (inception to October 2014) electronic databases and prospective trial registers. Furthermore, we checked the reference lists of all obtained studies and performed a handsearch of conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different timing methods for IUI were included. The following interventions were evaluated: detection of luteinising hormone (LH) in urine or blood, single test; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration; combination of LH detection and hCG administration; basal body temperature chart; ultrasound detection of ovulation; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration; or other timing methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the trials, extracted the data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. MAIN

resultsEighteen RCTs were included in the review, of which 14 were included in the meta-analyses (in total 2279 couples). The evidence was current to October 2013. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for most comparisons . The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and attrition bias.Ten RCTs compared different methods of timing for IUI. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between hCG injection versus LH surge (odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 18, 1 RCT, 24 women, very low quality evidence), urinary hCG versus recombinant hCG (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.03, 1 RCT, 284 women, low quality evidence) or hCG versus GnRH agonist (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.6, 3 RCTS, 104 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).Two RCTs compared the optimum time interval from hCG injection to IUI, comparing different time frames that ranged from 24 hours to 48 hours. Only one of these studies reported live birth rates, and found no difference between the groups (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.00, 1 RCT, 204 couples). One study compared early versus late hCG administration and one study compared different dosages of hCG, but neither reported the primary outcome of live birth.We found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)). However, most of these data were very low quality. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in safety and effectiveness between different methods of synchronization of ovulation and insemination. More research is needed.

Indexed as

AdultBody TemperatureChorionic GonadotropinFemaleGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHumansInfertilityInsemination, ArtificialLuteinizing HormoneMaleOvulation DetectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime FactorsYoung AdultChorionic GonadotropinGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneLuteinizing Hormone

Identifiers

PMID25528596
PMCPMC11182568

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.