Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMC

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.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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 evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research