Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Catéteres blandos versus rígidos para la inseminación intrauterina

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006225.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 10 noviembre 2010see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Ginecología y fertilidad

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Nicolien van der Poel

    Correspondencia a: Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Academic Medical Centre, University of Amterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    [email protected]

  • Cindy Farquhar

    Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

  • Ahmed M Abou‐Setta

    University of Alberta Evidence‐based Practice Centre (UA‐EPC), Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence (ARCHE), Edmonton, Canada

  • Laura Benschop

    Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

  • Maas Jan Heineman

    Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contributions of authors

N.A. van der Poel: development of the protocol, literature search, data extraction, study selection, quality assessment, data entry and analysis, writing the first draft of the review.
C. Farquhar: Support with developing the protocol and the final draft of the review.
L. Benschop: data extraction, study selection and quality assessment.
M.J. Heineman: Support with developing the protocol and the review.
A.M. Abou‐Setta: Support with developing the protocol and the final draft of the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • ir. J.C. van der Poel and mr. H. van der Poel‐Berkovits, Netherlands.

    Parents of NP, made it possible to travel to New Zealand to do this review

  • dr. R.N.P Berkovits and E. Berkovits‐Lampl, Netherlands.

    Grandparents of NP, made it possible to travel to New Zealand to do this review

Declarations of interest

A.M. Abou‐Setta is the lead author of a review on a similar topic (Abou‐Setta 2006).

Acknowledgements

The search strategy was approved by the MDSG trial search coordinator Marian Showell
([email protected]), for the following databases:
1. MDSG
2. CENTRAL
3. MEDLINE
4. EMBASE
5. PsycINFO

Special thanks to Jane Clarke, Managing Editor / Research Fellow of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group, for all the support in writing the protocol and the review.

Also a special thank you to all trial authors who replied to our requests for additional information.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2010 Nov 10

Soft versus firm catheters for intrauterine insemination

Review

Nicolien van der Poel, Cindy Farquhar, Ahmed M Abou‐Setta, Laura Benschop, Maas Jan Heineman

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006225.pub2

2006 Oct 18

Soft versus firm catheters for intrauterine insemination

Protocol

Nicolien van der Poel, Cindy Farquhar, Ahmed M Abou‐Setta, Laura Benschop, Maas Jan Heineman

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006225

Differences between protocol and review

The authorship has changes between the protocol and the review. In 2006, the protocol was first published by the team of AM Abou‐Setta. In 2010, the protocol was changed and published by the team of NA van der Poel.

The title has changed in the new protocol. In the publication of 2006 the title was 'Technical aspects of intrauterine insemination, soft versus firm catheter types'. In the new version, published in 2010, the title changed in to 'Soft versus firm catheters for intrauterine insemination'.

After publication of the protocol, we changed the criteria for inclusion of studies. We included a study that randomised per cycle and not per woman but we calculated that only 20% of the women had more than one cycle. We performed sensitivity analyses to determine whether conclusions would have differed if this study were excluded.