Advertisement

The Efficacy of Natural Insemination: A Comparative Standard for Aid

  • Henri Léridon

Abstract

In order to measure the effectiveness of sterility therapy of whatever type, it is necessary to have a reference for comparison. Of course, if it were certain that all che couples undergoing treatment were absolutely sterile, any success obtained, even after years of effort, could be attributed to the effect of the treatment. However, this is not the case in practice. For example, women seeking help for fertility problems who receive hormone medication are most likely not sterile but merely subfertile, the aim of the treatment being to shorten the time required for conception to a more nearly normal duration. Measurement of the efficiency of the method used therefore presupposes the possibility of comparing the results obtained after treatment to values observed in a “normal” population.

Keywords

Spontaneous Abortion Geometric Distribution Comparative Standard Fertile Period Average Fecundability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Vincent, P. Recherches sur la fécondité biologique,I.N.E.D.-P.U.F., Travaux et Documents nº 37, Paris, 1961.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leridon, H. Human fertility.The basic components. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1977. Aspects biométriques de la fécondité humaine,I.N.E.D.-P.U.F. Travaux et Documents nº 65, 1973.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sheps, M. and Menken, J.Mathematical models of conception andbirth. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1973.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Majumdar, H. and Sheps, M. Estimation of a type I geometric distribution from observations on conception times.Demo graphy, 7–3:349–60, 1970.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Potter, R.G. and Parker, M.P. Predicting the time required to conceive,Population studies, 18–1: 99–116, 1964.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spira, A., Ulmann, B. and Heard, I. Fécondabilité après différents modes de contraception. Commun. au Colloque sur la Contraception, Paris, 1–2 mars 1979. A paraître dans les Collections de 1’I.N.S.E.R.M., 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barrett, J.C. and Marshall, J. The risk of conception on different days of the menstrual cycle.Population Studies, 23–3:455–61, 1969.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henri Léridon
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut National d’Etudes DémographiquesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations