Fertility and sterility · 2000
A randomized prospective study comparing pregnancy rates after clomiphene citrate and human menopausal gonadotropin before intrauterine insemination.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ecochard R, Mathieu C, Royere D, Blache G, Rabilloud M, Czyba J C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether hMG offers an advantage over clomiphene citrate (CC) in achieving pregnancy after IUI with husband's sperm.
DESIGN: Randomized prospective trial.
SETTING: Infertility patients in a university teaching hospital.
PATIENT(S): Fifty-eight women under 39 years old undergoing ovulation induction before IUI.
INTERVENTION(S): The women were assigned randomly to one of two treatment groups. Patients in group I (CCHH) received CC for the first two cycles and hMG for the last two cycles. Patients in group II (HHCC) received hMG for the first two cycles and CC for the last two cycles.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cycle fecundity rates for the two treatment modalities were compared statistically with use of life-table analysis.
RESULT(S): Of the 174 cycles studied, overall cycle fecundity rate was 11.11 (9 of 81 cycles) in the CCHH group and 10.75 (10 of 93 cycles) in the HHCC group. The difference was not statistically significant. The cycle fecundity rate was 14.44% (13 of 90 cycles) for cycles with CC and 7.14% (6 of 84) with hMG. The difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION(S): These data suggest that CC is an effective alternative to hMG in the population examined.
DESIGN: Randomized prospective trial.
SETTING: Infertility patients in a university teaching hospital.
PATIENT(S): Fifty-eight women under 39 years old undergoing ovulation induction before IUI.
INTERVENTION(S): The women were assigned randomly to one of two treatment groups. Patients in group I (CCHH) received CC for the first two cycles and hMG for the last two cycles. Patients in group II (HHCC) received hMG for the first two cycles and CC for the last two cycles.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cycle fecundity rates for the two treatment modalities were compared statistically with use of life-table analysis.
RESULT(S): Of the 174 cycles studied, overall cycle fecundity rate was 11.11 (9 of 81 cycles) in the CCHH group and 10.75 (10 of 93 cycles) in the HHCC group. The difference was not statistically significant. The cycle fecundity rate was 14.44% (13 of 90 cycles) for cycles with CC and 7.14% (6 of 84) with hMG. The difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION(S): These data suggest that CC is an effective alternative to hMG in the population examined.