Search     for          [ Advanced Search ]


    Browse   Add Article/Listing   What's Top   What's New   Featured   Tell a Friend   FAQ



  Categories

    News (990)
    Jobs & Resumes (51)
    Image Database (209)
    IVF Mail (660)
    Reviews (65)
    Links (103)
    Books & Videos (49)
    Clinics (231)
    Embryology courses (33)
    Tutorials (8)
    IVF Podcasts (13)


  Sponsors

1.  ac-tive (IVF)
2.  CRi (Oosight)
3.  Cryolock
4.  Hamilton Thorne Research
5.  IVFonline
6.  MediCult
7.  Mellowood Medical Clinic Software
8.  Research Instruments
9.  Zander IVF


  Clinic Sponsors

1.  Jinemed Hospital, Turkey


  Featured Listings


zIVF-AIRe 100C CLEAN AIR™ - Air Filtration / Purification Systems


TLS2200 Thermal Labeling System


  Recently Viewed

1.  Two infertility treatments found to be no better than nature
2.  US bioethics Council releases ART recommendations
3.  Advanced Workshop in Preimplantation Genetics
4.  Warming of vitrified blastocysts and D2 embryos
5.  WiCell adds training session
6.  Ultrasound Scan
7.  UK's IVF pioneer receives lifetime achievement award
8.  Vitrification workshop 2nd annoucement
9.  Three cases show parenthood rules need revising
10.  What clinics want from regulation


  IVF Journals



  IVF Support

1.  Resolve
2.  Infertility Network UK
3.  American Infertility Association
4.  Fertile Hope
5.  Egg Freezing
6.  Fertility Connect
7.  e-Infertility Network
8.  INCIID
9.  NISIG – Ireland


  IVF Tutorials

 
IVF


IVF > News

Two infertility treatments found to be no better than nature

Alison Cranage
Progress Educational Trust
12 August 2008
Discuss this article Read comments Add to favorites

[BioNews, London]

Two common infertility treatments are no more effective than trying to conceive naturally, according to a study published in the British Medical Journal. The study looked at the effectiveness of taking the drug clomifene citrate (CC) or having intra-uterine insemination (IUI) versus no intervention, and found that live birth rates were not significantly different. 

The research was led by Professor Siladitya Bhattacharya of Aberdeen University, and studied 580 women who had experienced unexplained infertility for more than two years. The women were randomly placed into three groups - one group were encouraged to try naturally for a pregnancy and had no medical interventions; one took oral CC which is believed to correct subtle ovulatory dysfunction; and one had IUI, which is thought to enhance the chance of pregnancy by injecting sperm behind the cervical barrier. All treatments were followed for six months.

At the end of the study there had been 101 live births. Seventeen per cent of the women who were advised to conceive naturally gave birth, compared to 14 per cent of those who were taking CC and 23 per cent of those who had IUI. The study concludes that the interventions did not significantly alter the chances of having a live birth compared to having no treatment. In addition, 10 per cent of the women taking CC experienced unpleasant side effects including abdominal pain, bloating, hot flushes, nausea and headaches.

One in seven couples in the UK experience problems conceiving and, in a quarter of these cases, the infertility is unexplained. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidelines four years ago which endorses the use of up to six free cycles of IUI without ovarian stimulation, for couples with unexplained infertility. The researchers suggest the NHS could be wasting money on such treatments and call for the guidelines to be reviewed.

In an accompanying article, Tarek El-Toukhy and Yacoub Khalaf from the Assisted Conception Unit at Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Foundation Trust Hospital in London wrote: 'As a direct result of the lack of evidence, many couples with unexplained infertility endure (and even request) expensive, potentially hazardous, and often unnecessary treatments'.



http://www.BioNews.org.uk
BioNews@progress.org.uk
© Copyright 2008 Progress Educational Trust

Reproduced from BioNews with permission, a web- and email-based source of news, information and comment on assisted reproduction and human genetics, published by Progress Educational Trust.


Page Views: 69

 

Average Visitor Rating:    0.00 (out of 5)
Number of Ratings: 0 Votes
Rate This Article:
 Visitor comments (0)
Discuss this article Write a comment

(No comments found. You may write the first one!)





  IVF Jobs



IVF Jobs | Resumes

Click here to post your
job announcement



  Latest Listings

1.  Obesity is not a threat to successful IVF
2.  Third Yazd International Student Award and Congress in Reproductive Medicine
3.  10th International Congress on Reproductive Biomedicine
4.  Correction - 5th Congress on Stem Cell Biology & Technology
5.  5th International Congress on Stem Cell Biology & Technology
6.  10th Royan International Research Award on Reproductive Biomedicine & Stem Cell Biotechnology
7.  Clinical Fellowship in Andrology and Reproductive Medicine


  Featured



  IVF Newsletter

Subscribe for the latest IVF news and announcements.
name
email
add   remove  


  Most Popular

1.  IVF Ethics Questionnaire [Results]
2.  Girl or boy? It's in dad's genes
3.  Fertility drugs linked to increased cancer risk
4.  Embryo quality and grading: The good, the bad or the ugly?
5.  In Vitro Fertilization
6.  Research links intelligence to sperm quality
7.  Clinical Fellowship in Andrology and Reproductive Medicine


  Talk to us



Name:  

E-mail:  



  IVF Videos

1.  Lysed Cell Removal
2.  Embryonic Division
3.  Professor Robert Edwards
4.  Embryo Metabolomics



Search Listings | Place Listings | Edit Listings | My Profile | My Favorites | Auto Notify | Sitemap | FAQ |
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Tell Your Friends | Refund Policy | ROR/RSS | Sponsorship and Advertising


embryo
Copyright © 1997-2009, IVF.net. All Rights Reserved.