sonography in comparison to urinary kit in intra-uterine insemination timing

Clicks: 206
ID: 169934
2018
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #31 of 59 articles by views in Journal of thermal biology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Background: Despite all attempts to increase pregnancy rates, overall success rate of Intrauterine Insemination (IUI) is still not acceptable. Proof of ovulation is an important indicator to determine the time of IUI, but to date there is no test proving that the ovulation has definitely occurred. Objective: This study was aimed to compare the efficiency of ultrasound in measuring the size of follicles and urinary Luteinizing Hormone (uLH) kit in determining LH surge for IUI timing. Method: In this comparative, nonrandomized, not blinded clinical trial, 311 IUI cycles in 262 infertile couples who were candidate of IUI were assigned into two groups of ultrasound (n=100 cycles) and uLH kit (n=211 cycles) for IUI timing. Two weeks after doing the IUI, the ßHCG was checked, and chemical pregnancy was confirmed. Four weeks after positive chemical pregnancy test, the fetal heart activity was confirmed by pelvic ultrasonography to confirm clinical pregnancy. Results: Chemical pregnancy rate was lower in ultrasonography group but not significant in comparison to LH kit (14.3% and 18.4%, respectively (P= 0.11)). Clinical pregnancy rate in the groups of ultrasonography and LH kit was respectively 10.3% and 10.3% which did not differ significantly (P= 0.3). Conclusion: Considering that the use of uLH kit is a simple and low cost way and can be done at home by the patients, so the patients can have an active participation in their treatment process.
Reference Key
zargar2018onlinesonography Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Mahvash Zargar;Farideh Moramezi;Nahal Nasehi;Parya Nasehi
Journal Journal of thermal biology
Year 2018
DOI
DOI not found
URL
https://www.ojhas.org/issue65/2018-1-3.html
Keywords
urinary luteinizing hormone

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.