Reply

Abstract

To the editors:Being firmly convinced that intrauterine insemination is frequently a cost-effective option in the treatment of infertility, I was attracted to the recent paper by Wild and Roudebush.1Wild MD Roudebush WE. Platelet-activating factor improves intrauterine insemination outcome.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 184: 1064-1065Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar However, I was dismayed that the clinical information was limited to the total number of semen samples, a statement that the semen samples were collected after at least 48 hours of abstinence and had normal World Health Organization semen parameters, a statement that the intrauterine inseminations were “routine,” and the pregnancy rate. There was no description of how patients were selected for treatment (or matched for the nontreatment control group), nor was there any information on the woman's age or infertility diagnosis, the number of inseminated spermatozoa, or the intrauterine insemination protocol (including the class of follicle-stimulating medication, type of monitoring, timing of insemination, and number of inseminations). I would respectfully question how the authors expect me to share their conclusion that “the addition of PAF to the sperm processing protocol will substantially improve intrauterine insemination pregnancy rates” without addressing any of these clinical variables, particularly as their conclusion is based on an experience with only 20 inseminations. In all fairness, I do not know whether my remarks are more appropriately addressed to the authors for not providing adequate clinical information or to the reviewers and editors for not requesting it. To the editors:Being firmly convinced that intrauterine insemination is frequently a cost-effective option in the treatment of infertility, I was attracted to the recent paper by Wild and Roudebush.1Wild MD Roudebush WE. Platelet-activating factor improves intrauterine insemination outcome.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 184: 1064-1065Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar However, I was dismayed that the clinical information was limited to the total number of semen samples, a statement that the semen samples were collected after at least 48 hours of abstinence and had normal World Health Organization semen parameters, a statement that the intrauterine inseminations were “routine,” and the pregnancy rate. There was no description of how patients were selected for treatment (or matched for the nontreatment control group), nor was there any information on the woman's age or infertility diagnosis, the number of inseminated spermatozoa, or the intrauterine insemination protocol (including the class of follicle-stimulating medication, type of monitoring, timing of insemination, and number of inseminations). I would respectfully question how the authors expect me to share their conclusion that “the addition of PAF to the sperm processing protocol will substantially improve intrauterine insemination pregnancy rates” without addressing any of these clinical variables, particularly as their conclusion is based on an experience with only 20 inseminations. In all fairness, I do not know whether my remarks are more appropriately addressed to the authors for not providing adequate clinical information or to the reviewers and editors for not requesting it. Being firmly convinced that intrauterine insemination is frequently a cost-effective option in the treatment of infertility, I was attracted to the recent paper by Wild and Roudebush.1Wild MD Roudebush WE. Platelet-activating factor improves intrauterine insemination outcome.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 184: 1064-1065Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar However, I was dismayed that the clinical information was limited to the total number of semen samples, a statement that the semen samples were collected after at least 48 hours of abstinence and had normal World Health Organization semen parameters, a statement that the intrauterine inseminations were “routine,” and the pregnancy rate. There was no description of how patients were selected for treatment (or matched for the nontreatment control group), nor was there any information on the woman's age or infertility diagnosis, the number of inseminated spermatozoa, or the intrauterine insemination protocol (including the class of follicle-stimulating medication, type of monitoring, timing of insemination, and number of inseminations). I would respectfully question how the authors expect me to share their conclusion that “the addition of PAF to the sperm processing protocol will substantially improve intrauterine insemination pregnancy rates” without addressing any of these clinical variables, particularly as their conclusion is based on an experience with only 20 inseminations. In all fairness, I do not know whether my remarks are more appropriately addressed to the authors for not providing adequate clinical information or to the reviewers and editors for not requesting it.