↓ Skip to main content

Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001838.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne M Veltman-Verhulst, Edward Hughes, Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke, Ben J Cohlen

Abstract

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is a widely used fertility treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Although IUI is less invasive and less expensive thAppendixan 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. This is an update of a Cochrane review (Veltman-Verhulst 2012) originally published in 2006 and updated in 2012. To determine whether, for couples with unexplained subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rate compared with timed intercourse (TI), or expectant management, both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH). We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (formerly Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group) Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, inception to Issue 11, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers, all from inception to December 2015 and reference lists of articles. Authors of identified studies were contacted for missing or unpublished data. The evidence is current to December 2015. Truly randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparisons of IUI versus TI, in natural or stimulated cycles. Only couples with unexplained subfertility were included. Two review authors independently performed study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. We extracted outcomes, and pooled data and, where possible, we carried out subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We included 14 trials including 1867 women. IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference in cumulative live births between the two groups (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.78; 1 RCT; n = 334; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI was assumed to be 16%, that of IUI would be between 15% and 34%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.53; 1 RCT; n = 334; moderate quality evidence). IUI versus TI or expectant management both in stimulated cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference between the two treatment groups (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.88; 2 RCTs; n = 208; I(2) = 72%; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of achieving a live birth in TI was assumed to be 26%, the chance of a live birth with IUI would be between 23% and 50%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates between the two treatment groups (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.87; 4 RCTs, n = 316; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence). IUI in a natural cycle versus IUI in a stimulated cycle Live birth rate (all cycles)An increase in live birth rate was found for women who were treated with IUI in a stimulated cycle compared with those who underwent IUI in natural cycle (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, n = 396; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in IUI in a stimulated cycle was assumed to be 25%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a natural cycle would be between 9% and 21%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.70; 2 RCTs; n = 65; low quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus TI or expectant management in a natural cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.49; 1 RCT; n = 253; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI or expectant management in a natural cycle was assumed to be 24%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 12% and 32%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.34; 2 RCTs; n = 304; moderate quality evidence). IUI in natural cycle versus TI or expectant management in stimulated cycle Live birth rate (all cycles)There was evidence of an increase in live births for IUI (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.44; 1 RCT, n = 342; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI in a stimulated cycle was assumed to be 13%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a natural cycle would be between 14% and 34%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the groups (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.90; 1 RCT; n = 342; moderate quality evidence).The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. Quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitation being imprecision in the findings for both live birth and multiple pregnancy.. This systematic review did not find conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth or multiple pregnancy in most of the comparisons for couples with unexplained subfertility treated with intra-uterine insemination (IUI) when compared with timed intercourse (TI), both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH). There were insufficient studies to allow for pooling of data on the important outcome measures for each of the comparisons.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 17 18%
Student > Master 14 15%
Researcher 12 13%
Other 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 33 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 48%
Psychology 19 20%
Unspecified 9 10%
Arts and Humanities 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 11 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,752,603
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,177
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,212
of 267,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.