Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination
Boomsma CM., Cohlen BJ., Farquhar C.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 370 on Scar, published in Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2019)
- Reported sample size
- 370
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 31612995
- PMCID
- PMC6792139
- DOI
- 10.1002/14651858.cd004507.pub4
- Citations
- 33
Abstract (original English)
Background Semen preparation techniques for assisted reproduction, including intrauterine insemination (IUI), were developed to select the motile morphologically normal spermatozoa. The yield of many motile, morphologically normal spermatozoa might influence treatment choices and therefore outcomes. Objectives To compare the effectiveness of three different semen preparation techniques (gradient; swim-up; wash and centrifugation) on clinical outcomes (live birth rate; clinical pregnancy rate) in subfertile couples undergoing IUI. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct Database, National Research Register, Biological Abstracts and clinical trial registries in March 2019, and checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy in terms of clinical outcomes of semen preparation techniques used for subfertile couples undergoing IUI. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes are live birth rate and clinical pregnancy rate per couple. Main results We included seven RCTS in the review; we included six of these, totalling 485 couples, in the meta-analysis. No trials reported the primary outcom
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.
Related research
- Level ASystematic ReviewPubMed
Clinical Applications of Autologous Fat Grafting in Pathological Hand Conditions.
Systematic Review with a reported sample of 7 on Osteoarthritis, Scar, published in J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
- 2026
- n = 7
J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol - Level AMeta-analysisPubMed
Stem cell therapy in thin endometrium and Asherman's syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 323 on Scar, published in Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
- 2026
- n = 323
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol - Level AMeta-analysisEurope PMC
Therapeutic value of mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles in hypertrophic and keloid scars: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Meta-analysis on Chronic Wound, Scar, published in Front Cell Dev Biol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
- 2026
Front Cell Dev Biol - Level AMeta-analysisPubMed
Efficacy and safety of autologous cell-based therapies for atrophic acne scar treatment: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with in-depth methodological and clinical insights.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 500 on Chronic Wound, Scar, published in Front Cell Dev Biol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
- 2026
- n = 500
Front Cell Dev Biol - Level ASystematic ReviewEurope PMC
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Fractional CO<sub>2</sub> Laser and Gold Microneedling Radiofrequency for Atrophic Acne Scars: A Systematic Review
Systematic Review on Chronic Wound, Scar, published in Skin Res Technol (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
- 2026
Skin Res Technol - Level AMeta-analysisPubMed
Role of exosome therapy in reconstructive surgery: a review.
Meta-analysis on Chronic Wound, Scar, Immune Modulation, published in Front Med (Lausanne) (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
- 2026
Front Med (Lausanne)1 citations