MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400335259 · doi:10.1111/aogs.14858

Optimizing intrauterine insemination: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the effectiveness and safety of clinical treatment add‐ons

2024· review· en· W4400335259 on OpenAlexaff
Elpiniki Chronopoulou, Andrea Gaetano‐Gil, Sadaf Shaikh, Claudia Raperport, Bassel H. Al Wattar, Gabriel Ruiz‐Calvo, Javier Zamora, Priya Bhide

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntrauterine inseminationRandomized controlled trialLive birthMeta-analysisSystematic reviewGynecologyPsychological interventionObstetricsProtocol (science)Pregnancy rateMEDLINEPregnancyInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most widespread fertility treatments. However, IUI protocols vary significantly amongst fertility clinics. Various add‐on interventions have been proposed to boost success rates. These are mostly chosen arbitrarily or empirically. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to assess the effectiveness and safety of add‐on interventions to the standard IUI protocol and to provide evidence‐based recommendations on techniques used to optimize the clinical outcomes of IUI treatment. Material and Methods Systematic review and meta‐analyses were performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A computerized literature search was performed from database inception to May 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included reporting on couples/single women undergoing IUI with any protocol for any indication using partner's or donor sperm. A meta‐analysis based on random effects was performed for each outcome and add‐on. Three authors independently assessed the trials for quality and risk of bias and overall certainty of evidence. Uncertainties were resolved through consensus. Primary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) or live birth rate (LBR) per cycle/per woman randomized. Registration number PROSPERO: CRD42022300857. Results Sixty‐six RCTs were included in the analysis (16 305 participants across 20 countries). Vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support in stimulated cycles was found to significantly increase LBR/OPR (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09–1.72, I 2 = 4.9%) (moderate/low certainty of the evidence). Endometrial scratch prior/during stimulated IUI cycles may increase LBR/OPR (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.03–2.01, I 2 = 1.8%), but evidence is very uncertain. Results from two studies suggest that follicular phase ovarian stimulation increases LBR/OPR (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.00–1.94, I 2 = 0%) (low certainty of evidence). No significant difference was seen for the primary outcome for the other studied interventions. Conclusions The findings of this systematic review and meta‐analysis suggest that vaginal luteal phase progesterone support probably improves LBR/OPR in stimulated IUI treatments. In view of moderate/low certainty of the evidence more research is needed for solid conclusions. Further research is also recommended for the use of endometrial scratch and ovarian stimulation. Future studies should report on results according to subfertility background as it is possible that different add‐ons could benefit specific patient groups.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica ScandinavicaSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207