Cited by 45Reproductive Health and TechnologiesSperm and Testicular FunctionAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy

Predictive value of different covariates influencing pregnancy rate following intrauterine insemination with homologous semen: a prospective cohort study

Thijssen, Annelies, Creemers, An, Van der Elst, Wim, Creemers, Eva, Vandormael, Eva, Dhont, Nathalie, Ombelet, Willem·2017·Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Abstract

The aim was to examine the value of different covariates in the prediction of intrauterine insemination (IUI) success. Between July 2011 and September 2015, data from 1401 IUI cycles with homologous semen in 556 couples were collected prospectively, by questionnaire, in a tertiary referral infertility centre. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations (GEEs). GEEs were used instead of an ordinary logistic regression model to take into account the correlation between observations from the same person. The primary outcome parameter was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), confirmed with a gestational sac and fetal heartbeat on ultrasonography at 7-8 weeks. An overall CPR of 9.5% per cycle was observed. Univariate statistical analysis revealed female and male age, male smoking, female body mass index, ovarian stimulation and inseminating motile count (IMC) as covariates significantly influencing CPR per cycle. Multivariate GEE analysis revealed that the only valuable prognostic covariates included female age, male smoking and infertility status (i.e. primary/secondary infertility). IMC showed a significant curvilinear relationship, with first an increase and then a decrease in pregnancy rate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.01.016

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thijssen, A., Creemers, A., Van der Elst, W., Creemers, E., Vandormael, E., Dhont, N., & Ombelet, W.
Affiliations
  • Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg (BE)
  • Hasselt University (BE)
Corresponding author
Thijssen, Annelies
Venue
Reproductive BioMedicine Online
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-05
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
463-472
ISSN
1472-6483 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2590975248
Cited by
45
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
FWCI
7.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Reproductive BioMedicine Online (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Document Server@UHasselt (UHasselt) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Limburg Sterk Merk
  • Flemish government
  • Hasselt University
  • Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg
  • Jessa Hospital
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Sperm and Testicular Function
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Keywords
intrauterine insemination, clinical pregnancy rate, prognostic factors, maternal age, male smoking, body mass index, ovulation induction, infertility treatment outcomes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Insemination, Artificial, Male, Middle Aged, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Semen, Pregnancy Rate, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review