75 IUI success and prognosis of natural conception 4 REFERENCES 1. Aboulghar M, Baird D, Collin J, Evers J, Fauser B, Lambalk C, et al. Intrauterine insemination. Human reproduction update. 2009;15(3):265-77. 2. Brandes M, Hamilton CJ, de Bruin JP, Nelen WL, Kremer JA. The relative contribution of IVF to the total ongoing pregnancy rate in a subfertile cohort. Human reproduction (Oxford, England). 2010;25(1):118-26. 3. Tjon-Kon-Fat RI, Bensdorp AJ, Bossuyt PM, Koks C, Oosterhuis GJ, Hoek A, et al. Is IVF-served two different ways-more cost-effective than IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation? Hum Reprod. 2015;30(10):2331-9. 4. Wang R, Danhof NA, Tjon-Kon-Fat RI, Eijkemans MJ, Bossuyt PM, Mochtar MH, et al. Interventions for unexplained infertility: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2019;9:Cd012692. 5. Farquhar CM, Liu E, Armstrong S, Arroll N, Lensen S, Brown J. Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation versus expectant management for unexplained infertility (TUI): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised, controlled, two-centre trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10119):441-50. 6. Steures P, van der Steeg JW, Hompes PG, Habbema JD, Eijkemans MJ, Broekmans FJ, et al. Intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation versus expectant management for couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2006;368(9531):216-21. 7. van Eekelen R, van Geloven N, van Wely M, McLernon DJ, Mol F, Custers IM, et al. Is IUI with ovarian stimulation effective in couples with unexplained subfertility? Human reproduction (Oxford, England). 2019a;34(1):84-91. 8. Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Jama. 2005;294(2):218-28. 9. Lawlor DA, Tilling K, Davey Smith G. Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology. International journal of epidemiology. 2016;45(6):1866-86. 10. Munafò MR, Smith GD. Repeating experiments is not enough. Nature. 2018;553(7689):399401. 11. Dreyer K, van Rijswijk J, Mijatovic V, Goddijn M, Verhoeve HR, van Rooij IAJ, et al. Oil-Based or Water-Based Contrast for Hysterosalpingography in Infertile Women. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(21):2043-52. 12. van Rijswijk J, van Welie N, Dreyer K, Pham CT, Verhoeve HR, Hoek A, et al. Tubal flushing with oil- or water-based contrast at hysterosalpingography for infertility: long-term reproductive outcomes of a randomized trial. Fertil Steril (accepted). 2020. 13. Gran JM, Roysland K, Wolbers M, Didelez V, Sterne JA, Ledergerber B, et al. A sequential Cox approach for estimating the causal effect of treatment in the presence of time-dependent confounding applied to data from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Statistics in medicine. 2010;29(26):2757-68. 14. Austin PC. An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivariate behavioral research. 2011;46(3):399-424. 15. Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Statistics in medicine. 2015;34(28):3661-79. 16. van der Wal W. Causal modelling in epidemiological practice [PhD thesis, 2011]. Chapter 8: Using iterative probability weighting to improve causal effect estimates. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Available from: http://bit.ly/2kWMrRt 2011.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw