|
The stimulation of the ovulation is part of the techniques fluently practiced in case of infertility. A British survey has just proven that this method would be less efficient than foreseen.
The researchers studied a sample of 580 women suffering unexplained infertility since more from two years. Two treatments have been compared with a group placebo: the stimulation of the ovulation by the citrate of clomifène and the intra-uterine insemination of semen without previous ovarian stimulation.
The results are astonishing: for the women not having followed a treatment, the rate of living birth was of 17% against 14% for the citrate of clomifène and 23% in the case of the inseminations. In other words, the stimulation of fertility would have an impact very limited on the fertility. In the same way, the rate of births by artificial insemination, although more elevated than the natural method, was less important than waited.
On the other hand, the treatments have a beneficial effect medically on the mental of the consistent women. Indeed, the women having benefitted from a medical follow-up, that it is by stimulation or insemination, felt reassured more that those that didn't have a treatment.
The authors of this survey underline the necessity to review the "current practices" in the treatment of the feminine infertility, underlining the inherent secondary effects of the medicines used. One estimates today that a couple out of ten has resort to one therapy to have a baby.
|
