In vivo fertilization procedures in infertile women with patent fallopian tubes: A comparison of gamete intrafallopian transfer, combined intrauterine and intraperitoneal insemination, and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation alone

Thomas �byholm, Tom Tanbo, Per Olav Dale, �ystein Magnus
In: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics · 1992 · vol. 9(1) , pp. 19–23 · doi:10.1007/bf01204109 · PMID:1617244 · W1963597949
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 3 in-corpus citations
Limited metadata. Only one source feed has indexed this record so far — no abstract, full text, or open-access copy is available through Endo Lab. The publisher's page (linked below) is the canonical location for the actual content. If you have institutional access, use "Find at my library".
View at publisher → View on OpenAlex View on PubMed
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This study evaluated gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT), combined intrauterine and intraperitoneal insemination (IUI + DIPI), and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COHS) alone, finding higher pregnancy rates for IUI/DIPI and GIFT compared to COHS alone.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This prospective study evaluated the relative efficacy of three in vivo assisted fertilization approaches in 150 infertile women with patent fallopian tubes: gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT), combined intrauterine and direct intraperitoneal insemination (IUI + DIPI), and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation alone (COHS). Clinical pregnancy rates were highest with IUI/DIPI (29.3%) and GIFT (28.6%), compared with COHS (8.9%). The authors conclude that controlled ovarian hyperstimulation combined with IUI and DIPI may be an alternative to GIFT, with the key caveat that the abstract provides limited detail on study design balance and outcome definitions beyond pregnancy rates. This paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (sparse)

Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.

Cites (3)

Cited by (3)

References (27)

Cited by (3)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK