» Articles » PMID: 36382011

Should We Adopt a Prognosis-based Approach to Unexplained Infertility?

Overview
Journal Hum Reprod Open
Date 2022 Nov 16
PMID 36382011
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The treatment of unexplained infertility is a contentious topic that continues to attract a great deal of interest amongst clinicians, patients and policy makers. The inability to identify an underlying pathology makes it difficult to devise effective treatments for this condition. Couples with unexplained infertility can conceive on their own and any proposed intervention needs to offer a better chance of having a baby. Over the years, several prognostic and prediction models based on routinely collected clinical data have been developed, but these are not widely used by clinicians and patients. In this opinion paper, we propose a prognosis-based approach such that a decision to access treatment is based on the estimated chances of natural and treatment-related conception, which, in the same couple, can change over time. This approach avoids treating all couples as a homogeneous group and minimizes unnecessary treatment whilst ensuring access to those who need it early.

Citing Articles

External validation of models for predicting cumulative live birth over multiple complete cycles of IVF treatment.

Ratna M, Bhattacharya S, McLernon D Hum Reprod. 2023; 38(10):1998-2010.

PMID: 37632223 PMC: 10546080. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dead165.


The effectiveness of immediate versus delayed tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in women with unexplained infertility (H2Oil-timing study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

Kamphuis D, Rosielle K, van Welie N, Roest I, van Dongen A, Brinkhuis E BMC Womens Health. 2023; 23(1):233.

PMID: 37149639 PMC: 10164300. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-023-02385-1.

References
1.
Oakley L, Doyle P, Maconochie N . Lifetime prevalence of infertility and infertility treatment in the UK: results from a population-based survey of reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2007; 23(2):447-50. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dem369. View

2.
Templeton A, Morris J, Parslow W . Factors that affect outcome of in-vitro fertilisation treatment. Lancet. 1996; 348(9039):1402-6. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05291-9. View

3.
Andaur Navarro C, Damen J, Takada T, Nijman S, Dhiman P, Ma J . Risk of bias in studies on prediction models developed using supervised machine learning techniques: systematic review. BMJ. 2021; 375:n2281. PMC: 8527348. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2281. View

4.
Zhang H, Shao J, Chen D, Zou P, Cui N, Tang L . Reporting and Methods in Developing Prognostic Prediction Models for Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2020; 13:4981-4992. PMC: 7751606. DOI: 10.2147/DMSO.S283949. View

5.
Becker C, Bokor A, Heikinheimo O, Horne A, Jansen F, Kiesel L . ESHRE guideline: endometriosis. Hum Reprod Open. 2022; 2022(2):hoac009. PMC: 8951218. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac009. View