The definition of unexplained infertility: A systematic review

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThere is no consensus on tests required to either diagnose unexplained infertility or use for research inclusion criteria. This leads to heterogeneity and bias affecting meta‐analysis and best practice advice.ObjectivesThis systematic review analyses the variability of inclusion criteria applied to couples with unexplained infertility. We propose standardised criteria for use both in future research studies and clinical diagnosis.Search strategyCINAHL and MEDLINE online databases were searched up to November 2022 for all published studies recruiting couples with unexplained infertility, available in full text in the English language.Data collection and analysisData were collected in an Excel spreadsheet. Results were analysed per category and methodology or reference range.Main resultsOf 375 relevant studies, only 258 defined their inclusion criteria. The most commonly applied inclusion criteria were semen analysis, tubal patency and assessment of ovulation in 220 (85%), 232 (90%), 205 (79.5%) respectively. Only 87/220 (39.5%) studies reporting semen analysis used the World Health Organization (WHO) limits. Tubal patency was accepted if bilateral in 145/232 (62.5%) and if unilateral in 24/232 (10.3%). Ovulation was assessed using mid‐luteal serum progesterone in 115/205 (56.1%) and by a history of regular cycles in 87/205 (42.4%). Other criteria, including uterine cavity assessment and hormone profile, were applied in less than 50% of included studies.ConclusionsThis review highlights the heterogeneity among studied populations with unexplained infertility. Development and application of internationally accepted criteria will improve the quality of research and future clinical care.