Types d'appel Agence de recouvrement Nom Intrum huissier afficher plus... Évaluations 6 Recherches 6533 Appréciation non fiable, Appel suspect, vérifie les commentaires! Commentaire le plus récent 16/10/21 1418 dab a écrit intrum justicia huissier de justice... tous Ajouter une évaluation Une fois connecté, vous pouvez identifier et bloquer les numéros évalués sur tous vos téléphones. Vous aidez aussi la communauté avec votre évaluation du numéro! Détails concernant le numéro Ville/Pays Ain, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes - France Numéro 04 27 84 85 81 International Numéro +33427848581 de Ain, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes évalué 1 fois comme Agence de recouvrement . +33427848581 Titulaire et adresse En savoir plus Toutes les données sont fournies sans garantie ! Statistiques de recherche Activité Dernier appel 11/08/22 Vues le mois dernier 71 Protection tellows N° 537 sur la liste noire Tendance des accès Les recherches sont en diminution et sont plus fréquentes pendant la semaine Score tellows pour +33427848581 Répartition des types d'appel et des noms des appelants dans les évaluations Types d'appel Inconnu 2 Rapports Agence de recouvrement 1 Rapports Numéro fiable 1 Rapports Harcèlement téléphonique 1 Rapports Arnaque 1 Rapports Nom inconnu 3 Rapports Intrum huissier 2 Rapports Appel publicitaire 1 Rapports Position approximative de l'appelant Cliquez sur la carte pour l'agrandir Qui appelle avec le 0427848581 ? Nouvelle notation pour 0427848581 Dois-je laisser une évaluation? Un numéro vous a appelé et vous avez des informations sur le correspondant ? La réponse est donc oui ! Votre évaluation affichera publiquement le numéro de téléphone et le nom de l'appelant dans notre répertoire. Si les commentaires pour un seul numéro sont nombreux et indiquent donc qu'il s'agit du harcèlement considérable, nous vérifierons si ce numéro est autorisé par les autorités. Veuillez noter nos conditions d'utilisation! Les commentaires laissés par les utilisateurs enregistrés ne sont plus supprimables sans un examen approfondi par le biais de tellows. Blog de tellows. Si vous évaluez le numéro d'une entreprise ou si vous disposez de l'information concernant cette entreprise, veuillez voir l'inscription d'entreprise pour plus de détails. Plus de numéros attribués au titulaire "Intrum huissier" 04 27 84 85 81 0427 84 85 81 0033427848581 +33 427 84 85 81 +33 4 27 84 85 81 +33427848581 + 0033 4 27 84 85 81 0033 427 84 85 81 graphc. And here is some test code: test_graph.c. 4.3. Implicit representations. For some graphs, it may not make sense to represent them explicitly. An example might be the word-search graph from CS223/2005/Assignments/HW10, which consists of all words in a dictionary with an edge between any two words that differ only by one letter.In such a case, rather than building an Journal List Biomed Res Int PMC5745683 Biomed Res Int. 2017; 2017 3512784. Rosalie Cabry-Goubet, 1 , 2 Florence Scheffler, 1 , 2 Naima Belhadri-Mansouri, 1 Stephanie Belloc, 3 Emmanuelle Lourdel, 1 Aviva Devaux, 1 , 2 Hickmat Chahine, 4 Jacques De Mouzon, 4 Henri Copin, 1 and Moncef Benkhalifa 1 , 2 AbstractObjective To evaluate the IUI success factors relative to controlled ovarian stimulation COS and infertility type, this retrospective cohort study included 1251 couples undergoing homologous IUI. Results We achieved 13% clinical pregnancies and 11% live births. COS and infertility type do not have significant effect on IUI clinical outcomes with unstable intervention of various couples' parameters, including the female age, the IUI attempt rank, and the sperm quality. Conclusion Further, the COS used seemed a weak predictor for IUI success; therefore, the indications need more discussion, especially in unexplained infertility cases involving various factors. Indeed, the fourth IUI attempt, the female age over 40 years, and the total motile sperm count 1 × 106. The exclusion criteria were TMS ≤ 1 × 106; sperm donation; seropositivity for human immunodeficiency virus HIV for any couple member; inseminations performed in a natural cycle or with clomiphene citrate CC. IUI ProtocolAll couples had undergone a standard infertility evaluation, which included medical history, physical examination, and assessment of tubal patency by either hysterosalpingography or laparoscopy and hormonal analysis on cycle day 3. A transvaginal ultrasound scan was performed on the second day of the cycle. On the same day, ovarian stimulation was carried out with recombinant FSH follitropin α; rFSH; Gonal-F, Merck Serono, France, or follitropin β; Puregon, MSD, France, urinary FSH urofollitropin, Fostimon, France, or hMG menotropin, Menopur, France at a starting dose of 75 IU/day from the second day of the response and endometrial thickness were monitored by transvaginal ultrasonography starting on day 6 of stimulation and then on alternate days; the gonadotropin dose was adjusted according to the ovarian response and the patient's characteristics. When at least one mature follicle reached a diameter >17 mm and E2 level > 150 pmol/mL, the recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin hCG, Ovitrelle, Merck Serono, France was administered, and endometrial thickness was single IUI was performed 36 h after hCG injection using a soft catheter classic Frydman catheter; Laboratoire CCD, Paris, France or a hard catheter SET TDT, International Laboratory CDD. The semen samples used for insemination were processed within 1 hour of ejaculation by density gradient centrifugation, followed by washing with a culture medium after determining the TMS and semen analysis according to the WHO criteria [26]. Outcome VariableThe main clinical outcome measures were clinical pregnancy and live-birth rates per cycle. Clinical pregnancy was defined as the evidence of pregnancy by ultrasound examination of the gestational sac at weeks 5– Statistical AnalysisThe stimulation protocols were divided into 4 categories according to the gonadotropin used for COS rFSH/Gonal-F, rFSH/Puregon, uFSH/Fostimon, and hMG/ type was considered in seven categories cervical factor, dysovulation, endometriosis, tubal factor, male factor, and unexplained infertility. After statistical analysis of the results, it was necessary to determine the parameter cut-offs to give infertile couples more chances through IUI before carrying out other ART techniquesGroups were compared for all main couples' characteristics and cycle outcomes. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation SD or percentage of the total. Data were analysed with Student's t-test for means comparisons or with the chi-squared test for comparison of percentages using Statistical Package, version SAS; Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA; p 15 Sperm motility ≥40 % versus ≤39 TMS ≥5 × 106 versus <5 s power calculation showed a power of 80% to demonstrate a difference across the COS groups in delivery rates of 10% between groups 1 and 4 and 2 and 4, of 11% between groups 3 and 4, of 8% between groups 2 and 3, of 8% between groups 2 and 4, of 7% between groups 1 and 2, 6% between recombinant FSH and urinary products, and of 9% between FSH and HMG4. DiscussionAs a first step in ART, IUI keeps a central place in the management of infertile couples for its simplicity, but it still offers weak effectiveness. Indeed, IUI success is still a subject of controversy, with a clinical pregnancy rate between 8% and 25% [16, 18, 27–31]. Furthermore, based on a recent prospective study in seven French ART centres, the overall live-birth rate was 11% per cycle, varying from 8% to 18% between centres [9]. Similarly, we attained 13% for clinical pregnancy and 11% for live-birth for the 1251 couples who underwent homologous IUI with gonadotropins for COS Table 1.Indeed, gonadotropin use had proved its superiority to improve clinical outcomes of IUI compared to other COS protocols, such as CC and letrozole [32–38]. Erdem et al. [36] showed that, for IUI success, rFSH Gonal-F was more effective than using CC to reach 28% for clinical pregnancy and 24% of live-birth. Nevertheless, it is still not clear which of the currently available medications is preferable for COS [15, 23, 39–43]. However, several studies compared different types of gonadotropin efficiency rFSH, uFSH, or hMG [15, 25, 44–47]. Indeed, in the first part of this work, we compared four gonadotropins for COS in IUI rFSH/Gonal-F; rFSH/Puregon; uFSH/Fostimon and hMG/Menopur while rFSH was the most used in 72% of couples Table 1.This preference was noticed in other studies [9, 15, 25, 36] without finding any significant improvement on clinical outcomes. Indeed, as demonstrated in our study, there was no significant difference between different protocols used for COS rFSH/Gonal-F; rFSH/Puregon; uFSH/Fostimon; and hMG/Menopur; Table 2, although, in contrast, some authors pointed to the greater potency of rFSH [22, 48]. However, other studies have reported higher pregnancy rates for hMG [33, 49–53]. Even if our study had 80% power to demonstrate differences in PR of 6% to 11% between 2 groups, according to their size, it is clear that the differences we observed were very low, in favour of a low impact of the 4 used COS regimen on the results. This was less clear for infertility origin because of the very low numbers of some groups. However, the results of the multivariate logistic model confirmed the results observed at the first step analysis, reinforcing their valueGenerally, rFSH is commonly used to minimize the possibility of developing ovarian cysts associated with LH contamination and to improve the probability of a more consistent, effective, and efficient ovarian response [22, 48].Although there was no significant difference between the efficiency of gonadotropins for COS, other COS protocol factors could be involved to improve the clinical outcomes, especially regarding the starting dose and the total doses of treatment as proved by several studies [15, 23–25, 54].To explain the absence of a significant difference between the four COS groups, we analysed other factors relative to COS protocol female age, IUI attempt rank, and sperm quality. As expected, our studied population showed its heterogeneity involving multiple factors, which was the reason not to have a real consensus about the efficiency of COS, and this made it harder to really evaluate its impact. The sperm motility significantly affected the live-birth in rFSH groups Table 3. Furthermore, the IUI attempt rank had a significant negative correlation with clinical outcomes with unequal values between groups Table 3. Indeed, it is not legitimate to consider the COS as a strong predictive factor of clinical outcomes in IUI, while other factors could not all be controlledInfertility type has been discussed throughout several studies as a nonnegligible indicator of IUI clinical outcomes [15, 30, 38, 50, 55–59], while the latest National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NICE guideline on fertility [59] recommends that IUI should not be routinely offered to people with unexplained infertility, mild endometriosis, or mild male factor infertility who are having regular unprotected sexual this reason, in the second part of this study, we were more focused on evaluating the infertility type effect on IUI success. As a result, there was no significant difference between clinical outcomes of the different groups based on the infertility type Table 4. Although unexplained infertility was most couples' indication for IUI 36% Table 1, as noticed in the recent report of Monraisin et al. [9] with a value of 39%, the lack of significant difference in clinical outcomes with other IUI indications was not unexpected, while its aetiology kept the multifactorial profile [57] shared with other infertilities. Our results are confirmed by the recent study of [38]. However, some teams report the best pregnancy rates in cervical indications [30, 55] and in anovulation infertilities [15, 50, 56]. Indeed, the pregnancy rate per cycle for patients with anovulation due to PCOS was 13%, which was probably corrected by Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation COH [15]. On the other hand, endometriosis was considered a bad prognostic factor for IUI success with lower pregnancy between 6% and 9% than other IUI indications [20, 50, 60]. Indeed, endometriosis, which is among the most difficult disorders to treat [21], decreased the IUI success rate for mild compared to severe cases 6% of success rate. This fact can argue the limitation of IUI to a maximum of two to three cycles [15, 19, 50, 60, 61]. This fact could explain our weak population size in the endometriosis group with just 35 couples, while the majority of couples were directed to undergo predictors of success have been widely studied on the COS effect and the infertility type effect. The most discussed effect was the age of the women, with a large debate on its impact on IUI success. Age has been accepted by many authors as a major predictive factor for pregnancy after IUI [29, 30, 60].The female age was a predictive variable for the live-birth rate but not for clinical pregnancy due to the increased miscarriage rate with age dependence, as can be observed in predictive unadjusted models [9, 57, 62]. The female age became a significant variable predictive for clinical pregnancy and live-birth rate with an adjusted model designed by Van Voorhis et al. [63] and, subsequently, Hansen et al. [57].In contrast with the aforementioned authors, our results did not show a significant correlation between the women's age and the clinical pregnancy rate Table 1, which was confirmed by several studies [11, 15, 16, 28, 64, 65]. This is due both to the intervention of other factors used in patients' selection including ovarian reserve and to the low numbers of women aged 40 or the female age impacted the success of IUI. A recent study by Bakas et al. [66] demonstrated a significant negative correlation between the age of the women and the clinical outcome of IUI r = − Indeed, with the female age cut-off of 40 years, clinical pregnancy was significantly affected Table 6 as shown throughout several studies, while the pregnancy rate decreased from 13–38% to 4–12% when the women were older than 40 years [30, 60, 67].The female age impact on IUI success could be masked in our study, because only were over 35 years and over 40 years. There may be a too low power to show a significant impact of age 40 and more in the multilogistic model, even if OR for this age category was very low Moreover, a multilogistic model including age as a continuous variable showed a significant negative impact on the delivery chance. On the other hand, age may also be linked to other factors, especially the IUI attempt rank. It is logical that, with more IUI attempts, the age advances. For this reason, Aydin et al. [68] could find no significant effect of female age on the clinical pregnancy rate in the first IUI cycle. Indeed, the rank attempt is determinant for IUI success. In our study, pregnancy rates and live births decreased significantly with the rank of insemination p = and p < resp. from rank 4 for both parameters p = see Table 6. Hendin et al. [67] and Merviel et al. [30] obtained 97% and 80%, respectively, of clinical pregnancies in their first three attempts. Plosker et al. [69] advocated a passage in IVF after three failed cycles of IUI. However, Soria et al. [15] demonstrated that from the fourth IUI cycle clinical pregnancy is negatively affected, which confirms our Blasco et al. [62] proved that the number of previous IUI cycles of the patient did not show a positive association with the cycle outcome in any of the developing steps of the models. In our study, IUI attempt rank did not have a clear correlation with clinical outcomes in different COS groups, but it did show a negative correlation with live-birth rates for patients with PCOS, unexplained infertility and male factor Tables 3 and 5. This could be explained by the evidence of severity of infertility type throughout time with an accumulation of IUI attempt failures, while IUI as a simple technique is less efficient than other ART techniques in achieving a clinical pregnancy. Particularly for infertile couples with male factor, the sperm quality becomes the determinant for IUI success [11, 70, 71], which was shown in our findings with a positive correlation of sperm concentration Table 5. It would be difficult to determine a universal threshold for sperm concentration, and each centre should define a threshold for its population and laboratory [72]. Nevertheless, Belaisch-Allart et al. [73] and Sakhel et al. [74] determined a sperm concentration cut-off at 10 × 106/mL and 5 × 106/mL, respectively. Indeed, the impact of semen quality was weak in our study, except for concentrations <5 × 106/mL, which remains nonsignificant due to small numbers of patients 8% of included population Table 6Sperm motility also appeared as a key factor in the study of Merviel et al. [30], where the pregnancy rate declined from 41% to 19% when the sperm motility was less than 70%. In our multivariable analysis with a sperm motility cut-off at 40%, we did not find any significant correlation with IUI clinical outcomes even with a large population size. This observation is reported also by Stone et al. [75].However, the TMS cut-off at 1 × 106, which was present in 21% of the included infertile patients, was a significant predictor of IUI clinical pregnancy Table 6. This finding was confirmed by two studies [9, 10] while others determined a higher threshold of TMS at 2 × 106 [68]; 3 × 106 [62, 76]; 5 × 106 [11, 77]; 10 × 106 [63, 78]. Indeed, the IUI clinical outcomes were improved with higher TMS, from × 106 to 12 × 106 [38]. Furthermore, regarding the sperm parameters, TMS was found to be an independent factor for clinical pregnancy after IUI in accordance with many authors [28, 63, 74, 77, 79–81]. However, Ozkan et al. [82] found just a minimal influence of TMS on the IUI success after TMS is a key factor for choosing IUI treatment or IVF, although a TMS threshold value of 5 × 106 to 10 × 106 has been reported as the criterion for undergoing IVF. Nevertheless, other sperm parameters could be better predictors of sperm morphology [58]. Although the predictive weakness of conventional sperm parameters for ART clinical outcomes has been demonstrated, sperm genome decay tests [83] could become a strong diagnostic tool to achieve clinical pregnancy for infertile couples undergoing homologous predictive factors for success have been found in some studies, such as duration of infertility, body mass index [15, 60, 82, 84, 85], and smoking [37], which were not regularly noted in our records and, therefore, could not be ConclusionThis study, is in concordance with our preliminary work [86] and demonstrate that there is no significant difference in clinical outcomes between different COS protocols rFSH, uFSH, or hMG and infertility types, even after taking into account the usual prognostic factors, including the female's age, the IUI attempt rank, and the sperm quality. However, unexplained infertility had a significant impact on IUI success, which revealed the need to look for more efficient ART strategies. Furthermore, since the fourth IUI attempt or with the female aged over 40 years, clinical pregnancy declined in IUI. Regarding the sperm quality, TMS with a threshold of 5 × 106 seemed a good predictor for IUI success. Indeed, over the obtained cut-off of the chosen indicators, other ART techniques might be more favourable for IVF live-birth infertile patients with male factor, sperm concentration was a determinant to achieve pregnancy, which necessitated some additional tests, such as sperm genome decay tests, before undergoing IUI and reviewing the couple's etiological factors for antioxidant prescriptions. Finally, every decision must be individualized to each couple's profile taking into account factors involved in the success of authors acknowledge the help of the embryology team of the IVF Centre of Amiens Hospital and the andrology team of Eylau Laboratory, Paris. This work was supported by the University Hospital and School of Medicine, Amiens, and Eyalu/Unilabs, reproductive technologiesCOSControlled ovarian stimulationIUIIntrauterine inseminationPCOSPolycystic ovaries syndromeTMSTotal motile of InterestThe authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this Boivin J., Bunting L., Collins J. A., Nygren K. G. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Human Reproduction. 2007;2261506–1512. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]2. Bushnik T., Cook J. L., Yuzpe A. A., Tough S., Collins J. Estimating the prevalence of infertility in Canada. Human Reproduction. 2012;273738–746. doi [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]3. Thoma M. E., McLain A. C., Louis J. F., et al. Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertility and Sterility. 2013;9951324– doi [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]4. Slama R., Hansen O. K. H., Ducot B., et al. Estimation of the frequency of involuntary infertility on a nation-wide basis. Human Reproduction. 2012;2751489–1498. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]5. The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Intrauterine insemination. Human Reproduction Update. 2009;153265–277. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]6. Oehninger S. Place of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in management of male infertility. The Lancet. 2001;35792742068–2069. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]7. Abdelkader A. M., Yeh J. The potential use of intrauterine insemination as a basic option for infertility a review for technology-limited medical settings. Obstetrics and Gynecology International. 2009;200911. doi [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]8. Katzorke T., Kolodziej F. B. Significance of insemination in the era of IVF and ICSI. Der Urologe—Ausgabe A. 2010;497842–846. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]9. Monraisin O., Chansel-Debordeaux L., Chiron A., et al. Evaluation of intrauterine insemination practices a 1-year prospective study in seven French assisted reproduction technology centers. Fertility and Sterility. 2016;10561589–1593. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]10. Campana A., Sakkas D., Stalberg A., et al. Intrauterine insemination evaluation of the results according to the woman's age, sperm quality, total sperm count per insemination and life table analysis. Human Reproduction. 1996;114732–736. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]11. Khalil M. R., Rasmussen P. E., Erb K., Laursen S. B., Rex S., Westergaard L. G. Homologous intrauterine insemination. An evaluation of prognostic factors based on a review of 2473 cycles. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2001;80174–81. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]12. Kamath M. S., Bhave P. T. K., Aleyamma T. K., et al. Predictive factors for pregnancy after intrauterine insemination a prospective study of factors affecting outcome. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences. 2010;33129–134. doi [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]13. Tijani H. A., Bhattacharya S. The role of intrauterine insemination in male infertility. Human Fertility. 2010;134226–232. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]14. Souter I., Baltagi L. M., Kuleta D., Meeker J. D., Petrozza J. C. Women, weight, and fertility the effect of body mass index on the outcome of superovulation/intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertility and Sterility. 2011;9531042–1047. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]15. Soria M., Pradillo G., García J., et al. Pregnancy predictors after intrauterine insemination analysis of 3012 cycles in 1201 couples. Journal of Reproduction and Infertility. 2012;133158–166. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]16. Dilbaz B., Özkaya E., Çinar M. Predictors of total gonadotropin dose required for follicular growth in controlled ovarian stimulation with intrauterin insemination cycles in patients with unexplained infertility or male subfertility. Gynecology, Obstetrics and Reproductive Medicine. 2001;17120016 [Google Scholar]17. Goverde A. J., McDonnell J., Vermeiden J. P. W., Schats R., Rutten F. F. H., Schoemaker J. Intrauterine insemination or in-vitro fertilisation in idiopathic subfertility and male subfertility a randomised trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Lancet. 2000;355919713–18. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]18. Kim D., Child T., Farquhar C. Intrauterine insemination A UK survey on the adherence to NICE clinical guidelines by fertility clinics. BMJ Open. 2015;55 doi [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]19. Prado-Perez J., Navarro-Maritnez C., Lopez-Rivadeneira E., Sanon-Julien Flores E. The impact of endometriosis on the rate of pregnancy of patients submitted to intrauterine insemination. Fertility and Sterility. 2002;77supplement 1p. S51. doi [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]20. Dmowski W. P., Pry M., Ding J., Rana N. Cycle-specific and cumulative fecundity in patients with endometriosis who are undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation-intrauterine insemination or in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility. 2002;784750–756. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]21. Härkki P., Tiitinen A., Ylikorkala O. Endometriosis and assisted reproduction techniques. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2010;1205207–213. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]22. Matorras R., Recio V., Corcóstegui B., Rodríguez-Escudero F. J. Recombinant human FSH versus highly purified urinary FSH a randomized study in intrauterine insemination with husband's spermatozoa. Human Reproduction. 2000;1561231–1234. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]23. Gerli S., Bini V., Renzo G. C. D. Cost-effectiveness of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone FSH versus human FSH in intrauterine insemination cycles a statistical model-derived analysis. Gynecological Endocrinology. 2008;24118–23. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]24. Ragni G., Alagna F., Brigante C., et al. GnRH antagonists and mild ovarian stimulation for intrauterine insemination A randomized study comparing different gonadotrophin dosages. Human Reproduction. 2004;19154–58. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]25. Demirol A., Gurgan T. Comparison of different gonadotrophin preparations in intrauterine insemination cycles for the treatment of unexplained infertility a prospective, randomized study. Human Reproduction. 2007;22197–100. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]26. World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization; 2010. [Google Scholar]27. Ombelet W., Puttemans P., Bosmans E. Intrauterine insemination a first-step procedure in the algorithm of male subfertility treatment. Human Reproduction. 1995;10supplement 190–102. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]28. Ibérico G., Vioque J., Ariza N., et al. Analysis of factors influencing pregnancy rates in homologous intrauterine insemination. Fertility and Sterility. 2004;8151308–1313. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]29. Steures P., van der Steeg J. W., Hompes P. G., et al. Intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation versus expectant management for couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis a randomised clinical trial. The Lancet. 2006;3689531216–221. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]30. Merviel P., Heraud M. H., Grenier N., Lourdel E., Sanguinet P., Copin H. Predictive factors for pregnancy after intrauterine insemination IUI an analysis of 1038 cycles and a review of the literature. Fertility and Sterility. 2010;93179–88. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]31. Moro F., Scarinci E., Palla C., et al. Highly purified hMG versus recombinant FSH plus recombinant LH in intrauterine insemination cycles in women ≥35 years a RCT. Human Reproduction. 2015;301179–185. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]32. Dickey R. P., Olar T. T., Taylor S. N., Curole D. N., Rye P. H. Sequential clomiphene citrate and human menopausal gonadotrophin for ovulation induction comparison to clomiphene citrate alone and human menopausal gonadotrophin alone. Human Reproduction. 1993;8156–59. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]33. Manganiello P. D., Stern J. E., Stukel T. A., Crow H., Brinck-Johnsen T., Weiss J. E. A comparison of clomiphene citrate and human menopausal gonadotropin for use in conjunction with intrauterine insemination. Fertility and Sterility. 1997;683405–412. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]34. Guzick D. S., Sullivan M. W., Adamson G. D., et al. Efficacy of treatment for unexplained infertility. Fertility and Sterility. 1998;702207–213. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]35. Hughes E. G. timulated intra‐uterine insemination is not a natural choice for the treatment of unexplained subfertility 'Effective treatment' or 'not a natural choice'? Human Reproduction. 2003;185912–914. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]36. Erdem M., Abay S., Erdem A., et al. Recombinant FSH increases live birth rates as compared to clomiphene citrate in intrauterine insemination cycles in couples with subfertility a prospective randomized study. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2015;18933–37. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]37. Hassan M. A. M., Killick S. R. Negative lifestyle is associated with a significant reduction in fecundity. Fertility and Sterility. 2004;812384–392. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]38. Dinelli L., Courbière B., Achard V., et al. Prognosis factors of pregnancy after intrauterine insemination with the husband's sperm conclusions of an analysis of 2,019 cycles. Fertility and Sterility. 2014;1014994–1000. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]39. Cohlen B. J., Vandekerckhove P., te Velde E. R., Habbema J. D. Timed intercourse versus intra‐uterine insemination with or without ovarian hyperstimulation for subfertility in men. The Cochrane Library. 2007 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]40. Bry-Gauillard H., Coulondre S., Cédrin-Durnerin I., Hugues J. N. Advantages and risks of ovarian stimulation before intra-uterine inseminations. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité 2000;2811820–831. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]41. Casadei L., Zamaro V., Calcagni M., Ticconi C., Dorrucci M., Piccione E. Homologous intrauterine insemination in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles a comparison among three different regimens. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2006;1292155–161. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]42. Cantineau A. E., Cohlen B. J., Heineman M. J. Ovarian stimulation protocols anti‐oestrogens, gonadotrophins with and without GnRH agonists/antagonists for intrauterine insemination IUI in women with subfertility. The Cochrane Library. 2007 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]43. Dankert T., Kremer J. A. M., Cohlen B. J., et al. A randomized clinical trial of clomiphene citrate versus low dose recombinant FSH for ovarian hyperstimulation in intrauterine insemination cycles for unexplained and male subfertility. Human Reproduction. 2007;223792–797. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]44. Gerli S., Casini M. L., Unfer V., Costabile L., Bini V., Di Renzo G. C. Recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in intrauterine insemination cycles A prospective, randomized analysis of cost effectiveness. Fertility and Sterility. 2004;823573–578. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]45. Kocak M., Dilbaz B., Demir B., et al. Lyophilised hMG versus rFSH in women with unexplained infertility undergoing a controlled ovarian stimulation with intrauterine insemination a prospective, randomised study. Gynecological Endocrinology. 2010;266429–434. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]46. Sagnella F., Moro F., Lanzone A., et al. A prospective randomized noninferiority study comparing recombinant FSH and highly purified menotropin in intrauterine insemination cycles in couples with unexplained infertility and/or mild-moderate male factor. Fertility and Sterility. 2011;952689–694. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]47. Matorras R., Osuna C., Exposito A., Crisol L., Pijoan J. I. Recombinant FSH versus highly purified FSH in intrauterine insemination systematic review and metaanalysis. Fertility and Sterility. 2011;9561937–e3. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]48. Balasch J., Fábregues F., Peñarrubia J., et al. Follicular development and hormonal levels following highly purified or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone administration in ovulatory women and WHO group II anovulatory infertile patients. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 1998;159552–559. doi [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]49. Balasch J., Miró F., Burzaco I., et al. Endocrinology The role of luteinizing hormone in human follicle development and oocyte fertility Evidence from in-vitro fertilization in a woman with long-standing hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism and using recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone. Human Reproduction. 1995;1071678–1683. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]50. Vlahos N. F., Coker L., Lawler C., Zhao Y., Bankowski B., Wallach E. E. Women with ovulatory dysfunction undergoing ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate for intrauterine insemination may benefit from administration of human chorionic gonadotropin. Fertility and Sterility. 2005;8351510–1516. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]51. De la Fuente A. Evaluation of the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin. Study of use Menopur Ⓡ in Intrauterine Artificial Insemination IAC/IAD Fertility Review. 2007;24363–367. [Google Scholar]52. Filicori M., Cognigni G. E., Pocognoli P., et al. Comparison of controlled ovarian stimulation with human menopausal gonadotropin or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. Fertility and Sterility. 2003;802390–397. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]53. Gomez R., Schorsch M., Steetskamp J., et al. The effect of ovarian stimulation on the outcome of intrauterine insemination. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2014;2891181–185. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]54. Isaza V., Requena A., García-Velasco J. A., Remohí J., Pellicer A., Simón C. Recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in couples undergoing intrauterine insemination a randomized study. Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine. 2003;482112–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]55. Gallot-Lavallée P., Ecochard R., Mathieu C., et al. Clomiphene citrate or hMg which ovarian stimulation to chose before intra-uterine inseminations? A meta-analysis. Contraception, Fertilite, Sexualite. 1995;23115–121. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]56. Dickey R. R., Ramasamy R. Role of male factor testing in recurrent pregnancy loss or in vitro fertilization failure. Reproductive System & Sexual Disorders. 2015;0403 doi [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]57. Hansen K. R., He A. L. W., Styer A. K., et al. Predictors of pregnancy and live-birth in couples with unexplained infertility after ovarian stimulation–intrauterine insemination. Fertility and Sterility. 2016;10561575– doi [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]58. Erdem M., Erdem A., Mutlu M. F., et al. The impact of sperm morphology on the outcome of intrauterine insemination cycles with gonadotropins in unexplained and male subfertility. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2016;197120–124. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]59. NICE. Nice guideline Fertility for people with fertility problems. NICE clinical guideline 156 February, Nuojua-Huttunen S., Tomas C., Bloigu R., Tuomivaara L., Martikainen H. Intrauterine insemination treatment in subfertility an analysis of factors affecting outcome. Human Reproduction. 1999;143698–703. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]61. Toma S. K., Stovall D. W., Hammond M. G. The effect of laparoscopic ablation or danocrine on pregnancy rates in patients with stage I or II endometriosis undergoing donor insemination. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1992;802253–256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]62. Blasco V., Prados N., Carranza F., González-Ravina C., Pellicer A., Fernández-Sánchez M. Influence of follicle rupture and uterine contractions on intrauterine insemination outcome a new predictive model. Fertility and Sterility. 2014;10241034–1040. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]63. Van Voorhis B. J., Barnett M., Sparks A. E. T., Syrop C. H., Rosenthal G., Dawson J. Effect of the total motile sperm count on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility. 2001;754661–668. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]64. Mathieu C., Ecochard R., Bied V., Lornage J., Czyba J. C. Andrology cumulative conception rate following intrauterine artificial insemination with husband's spermatozoa influence of husband's age. Human Reproduction. 1995;1051090–1097. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]65. Brzechffa P. R., Daneshmand S., Buyalos R. P. Sequential clomiphene citrate and human menopausal gonadotrophin with intrauterine insemination the effect of patient age on clinical outcome. Human Reproduction. 1998;1382110–2114. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]66. Bakas P., Boutas I., Creatsa M., et al. Can anti-Mullerian hormone AMH predict the outcome of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian stimulation? Gynecological Endocrinology. 2015;3110765–768. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]67. Hendin B. N., Falcone T., Hallak J., et al. The effect of patient and semen characteristics on live birth rates following intrauterine insemination a retrospective study. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2000;175245–252. doi [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]68. Aydin Y., Hassa H., Oge T., Tokgoz V. Y. Factors predictive of clinical pregnancy in the first intrauterine insemination cycle of 306 couples with favourable female patient characteristics. Human Fertility. 2013;164286–290. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]69. Plosker S. M., Jacobson W., Amato P. Infertility Predicting and optimizing success in an intra-uterine insemination programme. Human Reproduction. 1994;9112014–2021. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]70. Oehninger S., Franken D., Kruger T. Approaching the next millennium How should we manage andrology diagnosis in the intracytoplasmic sperm injection era? Fertility and Sterility. 1997;673434–436. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]71. Dorjpurev U., Kuwahara A., Yano Y., et al. Effect of semen characteristics on pregnancy rate following intrauterine insemination. Journal of Medical Investigation. 2011;581-2127–133. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]72. Duran H. E., Morshedi M., Kruger T., Oehninger S. Intrauterine insemination a systematic review on determinants of success. Human Reproduction Update. 2002;84373–384. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]73. Belaisch-Allart J., Mayenga J. M., Plachot M. Intra-uterine insemination. Contraception, fertilité, sexualité 1992 1999;279614–619. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]74. Sakhel K., Abozaid T., Schwark S., Ashraf M., Abuzeid M. Semen parameters as determinants of success in 1662 cycles of intrauterine insemination after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertility and Sterility. 2005;84S248–S249. doi [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]75. Stone B. A., Vargyas J. M., Ringlet G. E., et al. Determinants of the outcome of intrauterine insemination analysis of outcomes of 9963 consecutive cycles. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1999;1806 I1522–1534. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]76. Strandell A., Bergh C., Söderlund B., Lundin K., Nilsson L. Fallopian tube sperm perfusion the impact of sperm count and morphology on pregnancy rates. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2003;82111023–1029. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]77. Huang Lee Lai et al. The impact of the total motile sperm count on the success of intrauterine insemination with husband's spermatozoa. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 1996;13156–63. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]78. Dickey R. P., Pyrzak R., Lu P. Y., Taylor S. N., Rye P. H. Comparison of the sperm quality necessary for successful intrauterine insemination with World Health Organization threshold values for normal sperm. Fertility and Sterility. 1999;714684–689. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]79. Miller D. C., Hollenbeck B. K., Smith G. D., et al. Processed total motile sperm count correlates with pregnancy outcome after intrauterine insemination. Urology. 2002;603497–501. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]80. Yousefi B., Azargon A. Predictive factors of intrauterine insemination success of women with infertility over 10 years. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. 2011;612165–168. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]81. Yavuz A., Demirci O., Sözen H., Uludoğan M. Predictive factors influencing pregnancy rates after intrauterine insemination. Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 2013;113227–234. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]82. Ozkan Z. S., Ilhan R., Ekinci M., Timurkan H., Sapmaz E. Impact of estradiol monitoring on the prediction of intrauterine insemination outcome. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences. 2014;9136–40. doi [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]83. Kaarouch I., Bouamoud N., Louanjli N., et al. Impact of sperm genome decay on Day-3 embryo chromosomal abnormalities from advanced-maternal-age patients. Molecular Reproduction and Development. 2015;8210809–819. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]84. Snick H. K. A., Snick T. S., Evers J. L. H., Collins J. A. The spontaneous pregnancy prognosis in untreated subfertile couples the Walcheren primary care study. Human Reproduction. 1997;1271582–1588. doi [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]85. Collins J. Current best evidence for the advanced treatment of unexplained subfertility
581 2021 Порівняно з 2018 роком, Україна піднялася на 5 позицій. Глобальний індекс миру У 2016 році Україна була на 85 місці. Індекс процвітання : Legatum Institute 96 / 167 2019 За рік Україна піднялася на 15 позицій Індекс розвитку еBattingRKBATTERDATEOPPSCOREABRH2B3BHRRBISBESPN*1Trevor Story, BOS5/19 SEAW Pederson, SF5/24 NYMW Rizzo, NYY4/26 BALW Perez, PIT6/30 MILW Guerrero Jr., TOR4/13 NYYW Tellez, MIL5/4 CINW Adames, MIL4/26 PITW Reynolds, PIT6/29 WSHW Carpenter, NYY6/12 CHCW Escobar, NYM6/6 SDW Hoskins, PHI6/14 MIAL Rodgers, COL6/1 MIAW Goldschmidt, STL6/14 PITW Farmer, CIN5/26 CHCW Naylor, CLE5/9 CHWW Paredes, TB6/21 NYYW Ohtani, LAA6/21 KCL Thomas, WSH6/3 CINW Jansen, TOR7/22 BOSW Suwinski, PIT6/19 SFW Mahle, CIN6/14 ARIW Buehler, LAD4/25 ARIW Kershaw, LAD4/13 MINW Ohtani, LAA6/22 KCW Gausman, TOR8/2 TBW Javier, HOU6/25 NYYW Alcantara, MIA7/5 LAAW Detmers, LAA5/10 TBW Rodon, SF7/9 SDW Pivetta, BOS5/18 HOUW Kershaw, LAD7/15 LAAW Wacha, BOS6/6 LAAW Cease, CHW5/2 LAAW Kuhl, COL6/27 LADW Mikolas, STL6/14 PITW McKenzie, CLE8/7 HOUW Javier, HOU7/1 LAAW Wainwright, STL8/13 MILL Verlander, HOU4/16 SEAW Morton, ATL7/3 CINL Glossary ESPN* 59 + H + R + .25*BB + .25*HitByPitch + TB + .25*SB - .25*CaughtStealing + .25*SacFlies + .25*SacHits + RBI - .25*K - .25*Outs GSC 50 + 1*Outs + 2*IP after the 4th + 1*K - 2*H - 4*ER - 2*UnearnedRuns - 1*BB SPORTS NFL MLB NBA NHL College Football College Basketball Soccer NASCAR MORE Racing Golf Tennis Boxing MMA Recruiting Olympic Sports Horse Racing FANTASY Football Baseball Streak for the Cash SPORTSNATION Polls VIDEO Most Recent MORE Music Arcade TOOLS Contact Us Corrections Daily Line RSS WatchESPN RADIO ESPN THE MAGAZINE SHOP SPORTSCENTER TEAM ESPN ESPN FRONT ROW NFLNBAMLBSoccerNCAAFLLWS…MMANHLBoxingCFLChalkNCAACricketF1GolfHorseNASCARNBA G LeagueNCAAMNCAAWOlympic SportsRacingRN BBRN FBRugbyTennisWNBAWWEX GamesXFLMore ESPNFantasyListenWatchESPN+ MLBMLBHomeHomeScoresScoresScheduleScheduleStandingsStandingsStatsStatsTeamsTeamsDepth ChartsDepth ChartsDaily LinesLinesFantasy BaseballFantasy BaseballDraftDraftInjuriesInjuriesFuturesFuturesTransactionsTransactionsPlayersPlayersTop 100 Players All-TimeTop 100 Players All-TimeAll-Time StatsAll-Time StatsPickCenterPickCenterTicketsTickets ΤοΜυστικό της Πεταλούδας Κύκλος Β Επ. 85 25/04/22. Το Μυστικό της Πεταλούδας Κύκλος Β Επ. 83 19/04/22 . Το Μυστικό της Πεταλούδας Κύκλος Β Επ. 81 13/04/22. Το Μυστικό της Πεταλούδας Κύκλος Β Επ. 79 11/04/22. Το Μυστικό της Πεταλούδας Κύκλος Β
Loading spinner wheel...
5384 08 62 33 81 59 41 36 28 51 21 59 02 90 28 46 66 87 95 77 76 22 07 91 91 75 75 37 41 61 61 36 22 69 50 26 39 02 12 55 78 17 65 14 83 48 34 70 55 89 41 59 26 94 00 39 75 83 91 12 60 71 76 46 48 94 97 23 06 94 54 13 74 08 77 51 30 38 20 86 83 42 99 01 68 41 48 27 74 51 90 81 39 80 72 89 35 55 07 19 50 23 71 74 69 97 92 02 88 55 21 02 97 73 74 28 77 52 51 65 34 46
33 4 27 84 85 81
