Skip to main content
. 2013 Nov 6;31(1):89–100. doi: 10.1007/s10815-013-0127-6

Table 2.

Methodological data of the clinical trials included in the review

Criterion Author, year (reference)
Agha-Hosseini, 2012 [18] Maher, 2011 [19] Kyrou, 2010 [20] Ebrahimi, 2010 [21] Erdem, 2009 [22]
Explicit eligibility criteria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sequence generation Yes (computer-generated random allocation) Yes (computer-generated random allocation in each patient for the first cycle and subsequently alternated from then onward) Yes (computer-generated random allocation) No (patients were sequentially allocated in each patient for the first cycle, remaining in the same intervention group from then onward) Yes (computer-generated random allocation in each patient for the first cycle, remaining in the same intervention group from then onward)
Allocation concealed Yes (nurses gave treatment according to allocation charts derived from randomized sequence) Not described No (the computer generated list was not concealed to investigators) No (a nurse sequentially allocated patients) Yes (an investigator held the random sequence, and two additional investigators performed the insemination procedure)
Patient blinding Open trial Open trial Open trial Open trial Open trial
Outcome assessor blinding Not described Not described Not described Open trial Not described
Patients lost to follow-up (%) No patient lost to follow-up.
Drop outs: 10 out of 300 patients (3.3 %): 5 patients (2 in the progesterone group, 3 cycles in the control group) did not start the IUI cycle, and 5 additional patients in the control group were non-responders.
No patient lost to follow-up.
Drop outs:
- 1 out of 71 patients (1.43 %) after the fourth cycle because an IVF cycle was requested.
- 25 of the 283 cycles initiated were abandoned (19 due to hyperstimulation, and 6 due to poor response).
No patient lost to follow-up.
Drop outs: 68 out of 468 patients (14,53 %):
- 4 patients left due to personal reasons after randomization
- 12 patients (7 in the progesterone group and 5 in the control group) did not start the IUI cycle due to abnormal steroid levels.
- 52 patients (38 in the progesterone group, 14 in the control group) after stimulation abandoned due to poor response.
No patient lost to follow-up.
Drop outs: 21 out of 200 patients (10.5 %, 11 in the progesterone group, 10 in the control group) dropped out after the 2nd cycle due to unspecified reasons.
No patient lost to follow-up.
Drop outs: 65 out of 214 patients (30.4 %, 30 in the progesterone group, 35 in the control group):
- 21 abandoned because an IVF cycle was requested
- 5 cycles were cancelled due to hyperstimulation.
Risk of bias Low risk of bias Low risk of bias High risk of bias (due to an incorrect allocation concealment) High risk of bias (due to an incorrect randomisation) Low risk of bias