Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Mar 3;3(3):CD001838.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub6.

Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility

Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke  1 , Joyce Danielle Asseler  2 , Ben J Cohlen  3 , Susanne M Veltman-Verhulst  4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility

Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

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 rates.

Objectives: To determine whether, for couples with unexplained subfertility, the live birth rate is improved following IUI treatment with or without OH compared to timed intercourse (TI) or expectant management with or without OH, or following IUI treatment with OH compared to IUI in a natural cycle.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 17 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors for missing or unpublished data.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI with TI or expectant management, both in stimulated or natural cycles, or IUI in stimulated cycles with IUI in natural cycles in couples with unexplained subfertility.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. Primary review outcomes were live birth rate and multiple pregnancy rate.

Main results: We include 15 trials with 2068 women. The evidence was of very low to moderate quality. The main limitation was very serious imprecision. IUI in a natural cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a natural cycle It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a natural cycle improves live birth rate compared to treatment with expectant management in a natural cycle (odds ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.78; 1 RCT, 334 women; low-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with expectant management in a natural cycle to be 16%, that of IUI in a natural cycle would be between 15% and 34%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a natural cycle reduces multiple pregnancy rates compared to control (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.53; 1 RCT, 334 women; low-quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a stimulated cycle It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle improves live birth rates compared to treatment with TI in a stimulated cycle (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.88; 2 RCTs, 208 women; I2 = 72%; low-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of achieving a live birth with TI in a stimulated cycle was 26%, the chance with IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 23% and 50%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle reduces multiple pregnancy rates compared to control (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.87; 4 RCTs, 316 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a natural cycle In couples with a low prediction score of natural conception, treatment with IUI combined with clomiphene citrate or letrozole probably results in a higher live birth rate compared to treatment with expectant management in a natural cycle (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.00 to 10.01; 1 RCT; 201 women; moderate-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with expectant management in a natural cycle was 9%, the chance of a live birth with IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 17% and 50%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle results in a lower multiple pregnancy rate compared to control (OR 3.01, 95% CI 0.47 to 19.28; 2 RCTs, 454 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). IUI in a natural cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a stimulated cycle Treatment with IUI in a natural cycle probably results in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with expectant management in a stimulated cycle (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.44; 1 RCT, 342 women: moderate-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with expectant management in a stimulated cycle was 13%, the chance of a live birth with IUI in a natural cycle would be between 14% and 34%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a natural cycle results in a lower multiple pregnancy rate compared to control (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.90; 1 RCT, 342 women; low-quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus IUI in a natural cycle Treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle may result in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with IUI in a natural cycle (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.50; 4 RCTs, 396 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with IUI in a natural cycle was 14%, the chance of a live birth with IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 17% and 36%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle results in a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared to control (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 78.27; 2 RCTs, 65 women; low-quality evidence).

Authors' conclusions: Due to insufficient data, it is uncertain whether treatment with IUI with or without OH compared to timed intercourse or expectant management with or without OH improves cumulative live birth rates with acceptable multiple pregnancy rates in couples with unexplained subfertility. However, treatment with IUI with OH probably results in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to expectant management without OH in couples with a low prediction score of natural conception. Similarly, treatment with IUI in a natural cycle probably results in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with timed intercourse with OH. Treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle may result in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with IUI in a natural cycle.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Reuben Ayeleke: none known. Joyce Danielle Asseler: none known. Ben Cohlen: none known. Susanne Veltman‐Verhulst: none known

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison 3: IUI in stimulated cycle versus TI or expectant management in natural cycle; outcome 3.1 Live birth rate per couple.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison 5: IUI in stimulated cycle versus IUI in a natural cycle; outcome 5.2 Multiple pregnancy rate per couple.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycle, Outcome 1 Live birth rate per couple (all cycles).
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycle, Outcome 2 Multiple pregnancy rate per couple.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycle, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate per couple (all cycles).
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycle, Outcome 4 Miscarriage rate per couple.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycle, Outcome 5 Ectopic pregnancy rate per couple.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 IUI versus TI or expectant management both in stimulated cycle, Outcome 1 Live birth rate per couple (all cycles).
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 IUI versus TI or expectant management both in stimulated cycle, Outcome 2 Multiple pregnancy rate per couple.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 IUI versus TI or expectant management both in stimulated cycle, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate per couple (all cycles).
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 IUI versus TI or expectant management both in stimulated cycle, Outcome 4 Moderate or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate per woman.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 IUI versus TI or expectant management both in stimulated cycle, Outcome 5 Miscarriage rate per couple.
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 IUI versus TI or expectant management both in stimulated cycle, Outcome 6 Ectopic pregnancy rate per couple.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 IUI in stimulated cycle versus TI or expectant management in natural cycle, Outcome 1 Live birth rate per couple (all cycles).
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 IUI in stimulated cycle versus TI or expectant management in natural cycle, Outcome 2 Multiple pregnancy rate per couple.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 IUI in stimulated cycle versus TI or expectant management in natural cycle, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate per couple (all cycles).
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 IUI in stimulated cycle versus TI or expectant management in natural cycle, Outcome 4 Miscarriage rate per couple.
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 IUI in stimulated cycle versus TI or expectant management in natural cycle, Outcome 5 Ectopic pregnancy rate per couple.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 IUI in natural cycle versus TI or expectant management in stimulated cycle, Outcome 1 Live birth rate per couple (all cycles).
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 IUI in natural cycle versus TI or expectant management in stimulated cycle, Outcome 2 Multiple pregnancy rate per couple.
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 IUI in natural cycle versus TI or expectant management in stimulated cycle, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate per couple (all cycles).
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 IUI in natural cycle versus TI or expectant management in stimulated cycle, Outcome 4 Miscarriage rate per couple.
4.5
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 IUI in natural cycle versus TI or expectant management in stimulated cycle, Outcome 5 Ectopic pregnancy rate per couple.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 IUI in stimulated cycle versus IUI in a natural cycle, Outcome 1 Live birth rate per couple (all cycles).
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 IUI in stimulated cycle versus IUI in a natural cycle, Outcome 2 Multiple pregnancy rate per couple.
5.3
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 IUI in stimulated cycle versus IUI in a natural cycle, Outcome 3 Pregnancy rate per couple (all cycles).
5.4
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5 IUI in stimulated cycle versus IUI in a natural cycle, Outcome 4 Miscarriage rate per couple.
5.5
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5 IUI in stimulated cycle versus IUI in a natural cycle, Outcome 5 Ectopic pregnancy rate per couple.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Agarwal 2004 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Agarwal S, Mittal S. A randomised prospective trial of intrauterine insemination versus timed intercourse in superovulated cycles with clomiphene. Indian Journal of Medical Research 2004;120(6):519‐22. - PubMed
Arcaini 1996 {published data only}
    1. Arcaini L, Bianchi S, Baglioni A, Marchini M, Tozzi L, Fedele L. Superovulation and intrauterine insemination vs. superovulation alone in the treatment of unexplained infertility. A randomized study. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1996;41(8):614‐8. - PubMed
Arici 1994 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Arici A, Byrd W, Bradshaw K, Kutteh WH, Marshburn P, Carr BR. Evaluation of clomiphene citrate and human chorionic gonadotropin treatment: A prospective, randomized, crossover study during intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertility and Sterility 1994;61(2):314‐8. - PubMed
Bhattacharya 2008 {published data only}
    1. Bhattacharya S, Harrild K, Mollison J, Wordsworth S, Tay C, Harrold A, et al. Clomifene citrate or unstimulated intrauterine insemination compared with expectant management for unexplained infertility: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2008;7(337):a716. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wordsworth SA, Buchanan JA, Mollison JA, Harrild KA, Robertson LA, Tay C, et al. Clomifene citrate and intrauterine insemination as first‐line treatments for unexplained infertility: are they cost‐effective?. Human Reproduction 2011;26(2):369‐75. - PubMed
Chung 1995 {published data only}
    1. Chung CC, Fleming R, Jamieson ME, Yates RW, Coutts JR. Randomized comparison of ovulation induction with and without intrauterine insemination in the treatment of unexplained infertility. Human Reproduction 1995;10(12):3139‐41. - PubMed
Crosignani 1991 {published data only}
    1. Crosignani PG, Walters DE, Soliani A. The ESHRE multicentre trial on the treatment of unexplained infertility: a preliminary report (Centre 10: Hedon, Montpellier). Human Reproduction 1991;6(7):953‐8. - PubMed
    1. Crosignani PG, Walters DE, Soliani A. The ESHRE multicentre trial on the treatment of unexplained infertility: a preliminary report (Centre 13: Willemsen, Nijmegen). Human Reproduction 1991;6(7):953‐8. - PubMed
    1. Crosignani PG, Walters DE, Soliani A. The ESHRE multicentre trial on the treatment of unexplained infertility: a preliminary report (Centre 16: Pellicer, Valencia). Human Reproduction 1991;6(7):953‐8. - PubMed
    1. Crosignani PG, Walters DE, Soliani A. The ESHRE multicentre trial on the treatment of unexplained infertility: a preliminary report (Centre 19: Martinez, Amsterdam). Human Reproduction 1991;6(7):953‐8. - PubMed
Deaton 1990 {published data only}
    1. Deaton J, Gibson M, Blackmer K, Nakajima S, Badger G, Brumsted J. A randomized controlled trial of clomiphene citrate and intrauterine insemination in couples with unexplained infertility on surgically corrected endometriosis. Fertility and Sterility 1990;54(6):1083‐8. - PubMed
Farquhar 2018 {published data only}
    1. Farquhar CM, Liu E, Armstrong S, Arroll N, Lensen S, Brown J. Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation versus expectant management for unexplained infertility (TUI): a pragmatic, open‐label, randomised, controlled,two‐centre trial. Lancet 2018;391(10119):441‐50. - PubMed
    1. Liu E, Farquhar C, Armstrong S, Arroll N, Lensen S, Brown J. Randomised controlled trial of intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation for unexplained infertility. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2017;57(S1):11.
Goverde 2000 {published data only}
    1. Goverde AJ, McDonnell J, Vermeiden JP, Schats R, Rutten FF, Schoemaker J. Intrauterine insemination or in‐vitro fertilisation in idiopathic subfertility and male subfertility: a randomised trial and cost‐effectiveness analysis. Lancet 2000;355(9197):13‐8. - PubMed
Guzick 1999 {published data only}
    1. Guzick D, Carson S, Coutifaris C, Overstreet J, Factor‐Litvak P, Steinkampf MP, et al. Efficacy of superovulation and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of infertility. New England Journal of Medicine 1999;340(3):177‐83. - PubMed
Janko 1998 {published data only}
    1. Janko P, Hruzik P, Pruzinec J, Saliba H, Zidzik J. Induction of ovulation with or without intrauterine insemination in cases of unexplained sterility. Fertility and Sterility 1998;70(3):S442.
Karlstrom 1993 {published data only}
    1. Karlstrom P, Bergh T, Lundkvist O. A prospective randomized trial of artificial insemination versus intercourse in cycles stimulated with human menopausal gonadotropin or clomiphene citrate. Fertility and Sterility 1993;59(3):554‐9. - PubMed
Melis 1995 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Melis GB, Paoletti AM, Ajossa S, Guerriero S, Depau GF, Mais V. Ovulation induction with gonadotropins as sole treatment in infertile couples with open tubes: a randomized prospective comparison between intrauterine insemination and timed vaginal intercourse. Fertility and Sterility 1995;64(6):1088‐93. - PubMed
Murdoch 1991 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Murdoch AP, Harris M, Mahroo M, Williams M, Dunlop W. Gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) compared with intrauterine insemination in the treatment of unexplained infertility. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1991;98(11):1107‐11. - PubMed
Steures 2006a {published data only}
    1. Custers IM, Rumste MM, Steeg JW, Wely MA, Hompes PG, Bossuyt P, et al. Long‐term outcome in couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis initially randomized between expectant management and immediate treatment. Human Reproduction 2012;27(2):444‐50. - PubMed
    1. Steures P, Van der Steeg JW, Hompes PG, Habbema JD, Eijkemans MJ, Broekmans FJ, et al. Intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation versus expectant management for couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet 2006;368(9531):216‐2. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Aanesen 2014 {published data only}
    1. Aanesen A, Westerbotn M. Prospective study of a Swedish infertile cohort 2005‐08: Population characteristics, treatments and pregnancy rates. Family Practice. 2014;31(3):290‐7. - PubMed
Aboulghar 1993 {published data only}
    1. Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Amin Y, Abbas AM, Salah IM. Ovarian superstimulation and intrauterine insemination for the treatment of unexplained infertility. Fertility and Sterility 1993;60(2):303‐6. - PubMed
Barros Delgadillo 2008 {published data only}
    1. Barros Delgadillo JC, Martinez Barrios E, Moreno Aburto C, Godines Enriquez MS, Manzur Navarrete F, Sanchez Solis V, et al. Intrauterine insemination versus programmed intercourse in cycles of controlled ovaric hyperstimulation. Ginecologia y Obstetricia de Mexico 2008;76(1):18‐31. - PubMed
Barros‐Delgadillo 2010 {published data only}
    1. Barros‐Delgadillo JC, Trejo‐Castaneda H, E‐Ormsby C, Gavino‐Gavino F. Differing response to GnRH antagonists in cycles of ovarian hyperstimulation plus intrauterine insemination. Ginecologia y Obstetricia de Mexico 2010;78(1):15‐28. - PubMed
Check 2013 {published data only}
    1. Check JH, Liss J, Bollendorf A. Intrauterine insemination (IUI) does not improve pregnancy rates in infertile couples where semen parameters are normal and postcoital tests are adequate. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gynecology 2013;40(1):33‐4. - PubMed
Doyle 1991 {published data only}
    1. Doyle M, DeCherney A. The value of empiric intrauterine insemination (IUI) with superovulation: a prospective‐ randomised clinical trial. Fertility and Sterility 1991;56:S34.
Evans 1991 {published data only}
    1. Evans J, Wells C, Gregory L, Walker S. A comparison of intrauterine insemination‐intraperitoneal insemination and natural intercourse in superovulated women. Fertility and Sterility 1991;56(6):1183‐7. - PubMed
Gregoriou 1995 {published data only}
    1. Gregoriou O, Vitoratos N, Papadias C, Konidaris S, Gargaropoulos A, Louridas C. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with or without intrauterine insemination for the treatment of unexplained infertility. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 1995;48:55‐9. - PubMed
Ho 1998 {published data only}
    1. Ho P, Yeung W, So W, Lau E. A randomised trial comparing the efficacy of ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination versus ovarian stimulation alone in the treatment of male infertility and unexplained infertility. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1998;105(suppl 17):43.
Kabouk 2010 {published data only}
    1. Kabouk GB, Donadio NF, Dzik A, Freitas GC, Justen R, Cavagna M. A prospective randomized study comparing clomiphene citrate supplemented with recombinant FSH or low‐dose hCG in ovarian stimulation for intrauterine insemination. Fertility and Sterility 2010;94 suppl 1(4):S160 Abstract no. P‐231.
Kirby 1991 {published data only}
    1. Kirby C, Flaherty S, Godfrey B, Warnes G, Matthews C. A prospective trial of intrauterine insemination of motile spermatozoa versus timed intercourse. Fertility and Sterility 1991;56(1):102‐7. - PubMed
Leanza 2014a {published data only}
    1. Leanza V, Coco L, Grasso F, Leanza G, Zarbo G, Palumbo M, et al. Ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate for infertile couple. Minerva Ginecologica 2014;66(3):309‐12. - PubMed
Leanza 2014b {published data only}
    1. Leanza V, Coco L, Grasso F, Leanza G, Zarbo G, Palumbo M, et al. Unexplained infertility and ovulatory induction with menopausal gonadotropins. Minerva Ginecologica 2014;66(3):303‐7. - PubMed
Martinez 1990 {published data only}
    1. Martinez AR, Bernardus RE, Voorhorst FJ, Vermeiden JP, Schoemaker J. Intrauterine insemination does and clomiphene citrate does not improve fecundity in couples with infertility due to male or idiopathic factors: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Fertility and Sterility 1990;53(5):847‐53. - PubMed
Martinez 1991 {published data only}
    1. Martinez AR, Bernardus RE, Voorhorst FJ, Vermeiden JP, Schoemaker J. Pregnancy rates after timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination after human menopausal gonadotropin stimulation of normal ovulatory cycles: a controlled study. Fertility and Sterility 1991;55(2):258‐65. - PubMed
Nulsen 1993 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Nulsen JC, Walsh S, Dumez S, Metzger DA. A randomized and longitudinal study of human menopausal gonadotropin with intrauterine insemination in the treatment of infertility. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;82(5):780‐6. - PubMed
Peeraer 2013 {published data only}
    1. Peeraer KA, Debrock S, Loecker P, Laenen A, Welkenhuyzen M, Spiessens C, et al. Effect of controlled ovarian stimulation with low dose human menopausal gonadotrophin or clomiphene on reproductive outcome after intrauterine insemination: a prospective, multicenter randomized trial. Human Reproduction 2013;28 suppl 1:i71‐i73 O‐172.
Prentice 1995 {published data only}
    1. Prentice A, Sacks GP, Morton NC, Deary AJ, Smith SK. Controlled ovarian stimulation (superovulation) and intrauterine insemination for the treatment of unexplained and minor male factor infertility. Human Reproduction 1995;10:112.
Serhal 1988 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Serhal PF, Katz M, Little V, Woronowski H. Unexplained infertility ‐ the value of Pergonal superovulation combined with intrauterine insemination. Fertility and Sterility 1988;49(4):602‐6. - PubMed
Tummon 1997 {published data only}
    1. Tummon IS, Asher LJ, Martin JS, Tulandi T. Randomized controlled trial of superovulation and insemination for infertility associated with minimal or mild endometriosis. Fertility and Sterility 1997;68(1):8‐12. - PubMed
Van Eekelen 2019 {published data only}
    1. Eekelen R, Geloven N, Wely M, McLernon DJ, Mol F, Custers IM, et al. Is IUI with ovarian stimulation effective in couples with unexplained subfertility?. Human Reproduction 2019;34(1):84‐91. - PubMed
Wadhwa 2013 {published data only}
    1. Wadhwa LA, Khanna RA, Gupta TA, Gupta SA, Arora SA, Nandwani S. Evaluation of role of GnRH antagonist in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles with mild ovarian hyperstimulation (MOH). Fertility and Sterility 2013;100 Suppl(3):S17‐S18. - PMC - PubMed
Xu 2014 {published data only}
    1. Xu BF, Wang GY, Fan WM, Chen Q, Zhang AJ. Which is the best protocol of ovarian stimulation prior to artificial insemination by donor. Journal of Reproduction and Contraception 2014;25(1):41‐8.
Zikopoulos 1993 {published data only}
    1. Zikopoulos K, West C, Thong P, Kacser E, Morrison J, Wu F. Homologous intra‐uterine insemination has no advantage over timed natural intercourse when used in combination with ovulation induction for the treatment of unexplained infertility. Human Reproduction 1993;8(4):563‐7. - PubMed
Zolghadri 2012 {published data only}
    1. Zolghadri J, Younesi M, Tabibi A, Khosravi D, Behdin S, Vafayee H. Comparison of intrauterine insemination with timed intercourse method in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2012;10(Suppl 1):42.

References to ongoing studies

NCT03455426 {published data only}
    1. Huang S, Wang R, Li R, Yan H, Li N, Wang H, et al. Intrauterine insemination (IUI) with or without letrozole for unexplained or mild male factor infertility: a randomized pilot study. Human Reproduction 2019;34(Suppl 1):i149. - PubMed

Additional references

Aboulghar 2003
    1. Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Al‐Inany HG. Diagnosis and management of unexplained infertility: an update. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2003;267(4):177‐88. - PubMed
Balasch 2004
    1. Balasch J. Gonadotrophin ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination for unexplained infertility. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2004;9(6):664‐72. - PubMed
Cohlen 1998
    1. Cohlen BJ, Velde ER, Looman CW, Eijckemans R, Habbema JD. Crossover or parallel design in infertility trials? The discussion continues. Fertility and Sterility 1998;70(1):40‐5. - PubMed
Cohlen 2005
    1. Cohlen B, Cantineau A, D'Hooghe T, Velde E. Multiple pregnancy after assisted reproduction. Lancet 2005;366(9484):452‐3. - PubMed
Costello 2004
    1. Costello MF. Systematic review of the treatment of ovulatory infertility with clomiphene citrate and intrauterine insemination. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2004;44(2):93‐102. - PubMed
Danhof 2018
    1. Danhof NA, Wely M, Repping S, Koks C, Verhoeve HR, Bruin JP, et al. Follicle stimulating hormone versus clomiphene citrate in intrauterine insemination for unexplained subfertility: a randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2018;33(10):1866‐74. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey268] - DOI - PubMed
Daya 1993
    1. Daya S. Is there a place for the crossover design in infertility trials?. Fertility and Sterility 1993;59(1):6‐7. - PubMed
Deeks 2017
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, editor(s) on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking metaanalyses. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Diamond 2015
    1. Diamond MP, Richar SL, Coutifaris C, Alvero R, Robinson R, Casson P, et al. Letrozole, gonadotropin,or clomiphene for unexplained infertility. New England Journal of Medicine 2015;373(13):1230‐40. - PMC - PubMed
Dias 2008
    1. Dias S, McNamee R, Vail A. Bias in frequently reported analyses of subfertility trials. Statistics in Medicine 2008;27(27):5605‐19. - PubMed
Dickey 2005
    1. Dickey RP. Risk factors for high‐order multiple pregnancy and multiple birth after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: results of 4,062 intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertility and Sterility 2005;83(3):671‐83. - PubMed
ESHRE 2006
    1. Andersen AN, Gianaroli L, Felberbaum R, Mouzon J, Nygren KG. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2002. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction 2006;21(7):1680‐97. - PubMed
Fauser 2005
    1. Fauser BC, Devroey P, Macklon NS. Multiple birth resulting from ovarian stimulation for subfertility treatment. Lancet 2005;365(9473):1807‐16. - PubMed
Gleicher 2000
    1. Gleicher N, Oleske DM, Tur‐Kaspa I, Vidali A, Karande V. Reducing the risk of high‐order multiple pregnancy after ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins. New England Journal of Medicine 2000;343(1):2‐7. - PubMed
Goverde 2005
    1. Goverde AJ, Lambalk CB, McDonnell J, Schats R, Homburg R, Vermeiden JP. Further considerations on natural or mild hyperstimulation cycles for intrauterine insemination treatment: effects on pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates. Human Reproduction 2005;20(11):3141‐6. - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT 2015 [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc) available from www.gradepro.org. GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc) available from www.gradepro.org, 2015.
Higgins 2017
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA, editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Hughes 1997
    1. Hughes EG. The effectiveness of ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of persistent infertility: a meta‐analysis. Human Reproduction 1997;12(9):1865‐72. - PubMed
Hughes 2003
    1. Hughes EG. Stimulated intra‐uterine insemination is not a natural choice for the treatment of unexplained subfertility.'Effective treatment' or 'not a natural choice'?. Human Reproduction 2003;18(5):912‐14. - PubMed
Hunault 2004
    1. Hunault CC, Habbema JD, Eijkemans MJ, Collins JA, Evers JL, Velde ER. Two new prediction rules for spontaneous pregnancy leading to live birth among subfertile couples, based on the synthesis of three previous models. Human Reproduction 2004;19(9):2019‐26. - PubMed
Johnson 2003
    1. Johnson NP, Proctor M, Farquhar CM. Gaps in the evidence for fertility treatment ‐ an analysis of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group database. Human Reproduction 2003;18(5):947‐54. - PubMed
Khan 1996
    1. Khan KS, Daya S, Collins JA, Walter SD. Empirical evidence of bias in infertility research: overestimation of treatment effect in crossover trials using pregnancy as the outcome measure. Fertility and Sterility 1996;65(5):939‐45. - PubMed
Kop 2018
    1. Kop PAL, Mochtar MH, O’Brien PA, Veen F, Wely M. Intrauterine insemination versus intracervical insemination in donor sperm treatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000317.pub4] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Liberati 2009
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 2009;6:e1000100. - PMC - PubMed
McDonnell 2004
    1. McDonnell J, Goverde AJ, Vermeiden JP. The place of the crossover design in infertility trials: a maximum likelihood approach. Human Reproduction 2004;19(11):2537‐44. - PubMed
Nan 1994
    1. Nan PM, Cohlen BJ, Velde ER, Kooij RJ, Eimers J, Zonneveld O, et al. Intra‐uterine insemination or timed intercourse after ovarian stimulation for male subfertility? A controlled study. Human Reproduction 1994;9(11):2022‐6. - PubMed
NICE 2013
    1. NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). Assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156 February 2013, issue 156:5. [guidance.nice.org.uk/cg156]
Norman 2000
    1. Norman GR, Daya S. The alternating‐sequence design (or multiple‐period crossover) trial for evaluating treatment efficacy in infertility. Fertility and Sterility 2000;74(2):319‐24. - PubMed
Ombelet 2005
    1. Ombelet W, Sutter P, Elst J, Martens G. Multiple gestation and infertility treatment: registration, reflection and reaction ‐ the Belgian project. Human Reproduction Update 2005;11(1):3‐14. - PubMed
Ombelet 2006
    1. Ombelet W, Martens G, Sutter P, Gerris J, Bosmans E, Ruyssinck G, et al. Perinatal outcome of 12,021 singleton and 3108 twin births after non‐IVF‐assisted reproduction: acohort study. Human Reproduction 2006;21(4):1025‐32. - PubMed
Ragni 2006
    1. Ragni G, Caliari I, Nicolosi AE, Arnoldi M, Somigliana E, Crosignani PG. Preventing high‐order multiple pregnancies during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination: 3 years' experience using low‐dose recombinant follicle‐stimulating hormone and gonadotropin‐releasing hormone antagonists. Fertility and Sterility 2006;85(3):619‐24. - PubMed
RCOG 1998
    1. Royal College of Obsterricians and Gynaecologists. The management of infertility in secondary care ‐ evidence based guidelines No. 3. RCOG Press, London. London.
Ripps 1994
    1. Ripps BA, Minhas BS, Carson SA, Buster JE. Intrauterine insemination in fertile women delivers larger numbers of sperm to the peritoneal fluid than intracervical insemination. Fertility and Sterility 1994;61(2):398‐400. - PubMed
Ryan 2004
    1. Ryan GL, Zhang SH, Dokras A, Syrop CH, Voorhis BJ. The desire of infertile patients for multiple births. Fertility and Sterility 2004;81(3):500‐4. - PubMed
Schünemann 2017
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al. on behalf of the Cochrane Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Snick 2008
    1. Snick HK, Collins JA, Evers JL. What is the most valid comparison treatment in trials of intrauterine insemination, timed or uninfluenced intercourse? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of indirect evidence. Human Reproduction 2008;23(10):2239‐45. - PubMed
Sterne 2017
    1. Sterne JA, Egger M, Moher D, Boutron I, editor(s). Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Stewart 2003
    1. Stewart JA. Stimulated intra‐uterine insemination is not a natural choice for the treatment of unexplained subfertility. Should the guidelines be changed?. Human Reproduction 2003;18(5):903‐7. - PubMed
Te Velde 1999
    1. Velde ER, Cohlen BJ. The management of infertility. New England Journal of Medicine 1999;340(3):224‐6. - PubMed
Tur 2005
    1. Tur R, Barri PN, Coroleu B, Buxaderas R, Parera N, Balasch J. Use of a prediction model for high‐order multiple implantation after ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins. Fertility and Sterility 2005;83(1):116‐21. - PubMed
Vail 2003
    1. Vail A, Gardener E. Common statistical errors in the design and analysis of subfertility trials. Human Reproduction 2003;18(5):1000‐4. - PubMed
Van Rumste 2006
    1. Rumste MM, Hartog JE, Dumoulin JC, Evers JL, Land JA. Is controlled ovarian stimulation in intrauterine insemination an acceptable therapy in couples with unexplained non‐conception in the perspective of multiple pregnancies?. Human Reproduction 2006;21(3):701‐4. - PubMed
Wang 2019
    1. Wang R, Danhof NA, Tjon‐Kon‐Fat RI, Eijkemans MJ, Bossuyt PM, Mochtar MH, et al. Interventions for unexplained infertility: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012692.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Wilcox 1995
    1. Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, Baird DD. Timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation. Effects on the probability of conception, survival of the pregnancy, and sex of the baby. New England Journal of Medicine 1995;333(23):1517‐21. - PubMed
Zeyneloglu 1998
    1. Zeyneloglu HB, Arici A, Olive DL, Duleba AJ. Comparison of intrauterine insemination with timed intercourse in superovulated cycles with gonadotropins: a meta‐analysis. Fertility and Sterility 1998;69(3):486‐91. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Cohlen 1999
    1. Cohlen BJ, Hughes E, Velde ER, Velde E. Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1999, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838] - DOI - PubMed
Veltman‐Verhulst 2006
    1. Veltman‐Verhulst SM, Cohlen BJ, Hughes E, Heineman MJ. Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Veltman‐Verhulst 2012
    1. Veltman‐Verhulst SM, Cohlen BJ, Hughes E, Heineman MJ. Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub4] - DOI - PubMed
Veltman‐Verhulst 2016
    1. Veltman‐Verhulst SM, Hughes E, Ayeleke RO, Cohlen BJ. Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub5] - DOI - PubMed
Verhulst 2005
    1. Verhulst SM, Cohlen BBJ, Hughes E, Heineman MJ, Velde E. Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances