...
首页> 外文期刊>Human Reproduction >A randomized controlled trial of fallopian tube sperm perfusion compared with standard intrauterine insemination for women with non-tubal infertility
【24h】

A randomized controlled trial of fallopian tube sperm perfusion compared with standard intrauterine insemination for women with non-tubal infertility

机译:非输卵管不育妇女输卵管精子灌注与标准宫腔内人工授精的随机对照试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

STUDY QUESTIONDoes fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP) result in better pregnancy and live birth rates than standard intrauterine insemination (SIUI) for couples with non-tubal infertility with or without gonadotrophin or clomiphene stimulation?SUMMARY ANSWERThere was no evidence of an improvement in live birth rates with FSP compared with SIUI.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYPrevious randomized controlled trials have suggested improved live birth rates with FSP but these trials were small. A systematic review published in 2004 suggested heterogeneity in results.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATIONThis pragmatic, multicentre, randomized controlled trial compared SIUI and FSP in 417 women with non-tubal infertility.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSThe patients were treated at fertility clinics in New Zealand, Australia and the United Arab Emirates.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEFour hundred and seventeen women were randomized to SIUI (n = 210) or FSP (n = 207). Data were available for analysis from 198 women in the SIUI group and 198 women in the FSP group. There were 19 women with incomplete data because of cycle cancellation or withdrawals and 2 women who conceived prior to commencing treatment. There were no significant differences in live birth rates between the two groups with 27 (12.9%) in the SIUI group and 21 in the FSP group (10.1%) [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.31 (0.71, 2.39), P = 0.48]. Two ectopic pregnancies were reported in the SIUI group and one was reported in the FSP group.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONDifferent ovulation protocols were used in the different clinics. Approximately 10% of the cycles involved donor sperm and ~5% of the cycles did not complete the assigned intervention.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThere was no evidence of an improvement in live birth rates with FSP compared with SIUI.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)The study was funded in part by the A+ trust of the Auckland District Health Board. No commercial funding was received.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERANZCTR Number ACTRN12612001303831.
机译:有或没有促性腺激素或克罗米芬刺激的非输卵管不育夫妇,输卵管精子灌注(FSP)是否比标准子宫内授精(SIUI)导致更好的妊娠和活产率?总结答案没有证据表明活产改善与以前的SIUI相比,FSP的出生率更高。先前的随机对照试验表明FSP的活产率有所提高,但这些试验规模很小。 2004年发表的系统评价表明结果存在异质性。研究设计,大小和持续时间这项务实,多中心,随机对照试验在417例非输卵管性不育女性中比较了SIUI和FSP。主要结果和机会的作用41位女性被随机分为SIUI(n = 210)或FSP(n = 207)。 SIUI组的198名妇女和FSP组的198名妇女可用于分析数据。有19名妇女因周期取消或退出而数据不完整,另有2名妇女在开始治疗前受孕。两组的活产率没有显着差异,SIUI组为27(12.9%),FSP组为21(10.1%)[赔率(OR)1.31(0.71,2.39),P = 0.48] 。 SIUI组报告了2例异位妊娠,FSP组报告了1例异位妊娠。局限,警告原因不同诊所使用不同的排卵方案。约有10%的周期涉及供体精子,约5%的周期未完成指定的干预措施。发现的广泛意义没有证据表明FSI的活产率比SIUI有所改善。研究资金/竞争兴趣( S)该研究部分由奥克兰地区卫生委员会的A +信托基金资助。未收到任何商业资助。注册号:ANZCTR编号:ACTRN12612001303831。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号