Annotated bibliography of studies in the meta-analysis

Emmet J. Lamb, 12/14/01

 

1.      Subak LL, Adamson GD, Boltz NL. Therapeutic donor insemination: A prospective randomized trial of fresh versus frozen semen. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1597-1606.

 

2.      Iddenden DA, Sallam HN, Collins WP. A prospective randomized study comparing fresh semen and cryopreserved semen for artificial insemination by donor. Int J Fertil 1985;30:50, 55-6

        This is a randomized clinical trial in which all cases were severe male factor infertility, CT < 1 million/ml. Minimum criteria for fresh semen were CT = 60, MT=60, Normal morphology > 60%. A constant volume of 1 ml was used for both fresh and thawed.

        Data of Tables I and II were used to prepare a life table from which cycle fecundity was calculated.

 

3.      Keel BA, Webster BW. Semen analysis data from fresh and cryopreserved donor ejaculates: comparison of cryoprotectants and pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril 1989;52:100-5.

4.      Brown CA, Boone WR, Shapiro SS. Improved cyropreserved semen fecundability in an alternating fresh-frozen artificial insemination program. Fertil Steril 1988;50:825-7

        The first cycle was randomized and subsequent cycles alternated between fresh and frozen. Cross over designs in which pregnancy is the outcome are especially controversial.

        Totals from Table 1 were used for estimating the cycle fecundity for meta-analysis. The values in Table 1 do not compute correctly for a life table when summed from bottom up.

 

5.      Richter M, Haning RV, Shapiro SS. Artificial donor insemination: fresh versus frozen semen; the patient as her own control. Fertil Steril 1984;41:277-80

        The first cycle was randomized and subsequent cycles alternated between fresh and frozen. Cross over designs in which pregnancy is the outcome are especially controversial.

        This is an earlier study by the same group of investigators as in Brown, above. The time is from 1976 to 1982 and the minimum criteria are less stringent: CT=60, MT=60, post thaw motility > 50% of initial motility.

 

6.      Smith KD, Rodriguez-Rigau, Steinberger E. The influence of ovulatory dysfunction and timing of insemination on the success of artificial insemination donor (AID) with fresh or cryopreserved semen. Fertil Steril 1981;36:496-502.

 

7.      Schoysman-Deboeck A, Schoysman R. Clinical comparison of fresh and frozen semen. Page 295-300 in David G and Price WS editors, Human Artificial Insemination and Semen Preparation. Plenum Press, 1980 AND Schoysman-Deboeck A, Merckx M, Segal L, Vekemans M, Verhoeven N. Results of AID in 865 Couples, Ibid, Page 231-47.

        Data on clinical factors listed in our table are from the second citation. We used data of Table 2 in the first citation to construct a life table limited to 12 months from which we calculated cycle fecundity.

        Fresh semen was used whenever possible and frozen used if there was no fresh semen available.

        Minimum criteria for fresh semen were CT = 80, MT=70. Post thaw CT and MT were about half that of fresh.

8.      Bordson BL, Ricci E, Dickey RP, Dunaway H, Taylor SN, Curole DN. Comparison of fecundability with fresh and frozen semen in therapeutic donor insemination. Fertil Steril 1986;46:466-9

        We used data in Table 2, excluding cycles in which both fresh and frozen were employed, to calculate cycle fecundity. Numbers in Table 1 do not compute correctly when calculated from the bottom up.

        Minimum criteria for fresh semen were CT = 60, MT=60. For post-thaw CT=40, MT=30 (Motile count = 12)

 

9.      Jackson MCN, Richardson DW. The use of fresh and frozen semen in human artificial insemination. J Biosoc Sci 1977;9:251-62.

        We used data of Table 1 to calculate cycle fecundity.

        This study covers a 40 year period. Tubal patency was determined after 3-4 failed cycles.

 

10.  Chong AP. Artificial insemination and sperm banking: clinical and laboratory considerations. Seminars Reprod Endocr 1985;3:193-200.

 

11.  Kossoy LR, Hill GA, Herbert GM, Parker RA, Rogers BJ, Daglish CS, Hebert CM, Wentz AC. Luteinizing hormone and ovulation timing in a therapeutic donor insemination program using frozen semen. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:1169-72 AND Kossoy LR, Hill GA, Herbert GM, Brodie BL, Daglish CS, Dupont WD, Wentz AC. Therapeutic donor insemination: the impact of insemination timing with the aid of a urinary luteinizing hormone immunoassay. Fertil Steril 1988:49:1026.

        This pair of papers covers the period 1984-1987 for fresh and 1987-88 for frozen.

        Minimum criteria for fresh semen were CT = 80, MT=60, Normal morphology > 60%. For frozen semen the pre-freeze motility was >70%. A hysterosalpingogram was done after 3 failed cycles and laparoscopy after 6.

        We combined data from LH and BBT monitoring groups (from Table 1 of first paper and Table 2 of second paper) and constructed 6 cycle life tables from which we calculated cycle fecundity.

 

12.  DiMarzo SJ, Huang J, Kennedy JF, Villanueva B, Hebert SA, Young PE . Pregnancy rates with fresh versus computer-controlled cryopreserved semen for artificial insemination by donor in a private practice setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:1483-90.

        We used data of Table II to construct the life tables from which cycle fecundity was calculated. Cycles beyond the 10th were omitted.

        Fresh was used from 1970 to 1987, usually with 2 inseminations; frozen from 1988-90, usually with better timed single insemination. Women who were having inseminations at the time of the switch to frozen were included only in the fresh group.

        More women using frozen were over 35 years old, 46%, than women using fresh, 22%.

        Data included 153 repeat fresh treatments and 2 repeat frozen treatments, presumably after a pregnancy. A treatment could include multiple insemination cycles. A better design would be to restrict analysis to the first treatment or to stratify in the analysis.

 

13.  Bartlet EM, Penney LL. Therapeutic donor insemination: fresh versus frozen. Missouri Medicine 1994;91:85-88.

 

14.  Leeton J, Selwood T, Trounson A, Wood C. Artificial donor insemination: frozen versus fresh semen. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaec. 1980;20:205

 

15.  Hammond MG, Jordon S, Sloan CS. Factors affecting pregnancy rates in a donor insemination program using frozen semen. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:480-5.