Intra-uterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non-tubal infertility

Background Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) combined with intrauterine insemination (IUI) is commonly offered to couples with subfertility that does not involve the fallopian tubes. Another method is fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP). This technique ensures the presence of higher sperm densities in the fallopian tubes at the time of ovulation than does standard IUI. The aim of this review was to determine whether FSP and IUI differ in improving the probability of conception. Objectives To investigate whether pregnancy and live birth outcomes differ between fallopian tube sperm perfusion and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility. Search strategy We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (October 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2008), and EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2008). Abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1987 to 2008) and European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (1987 to 2008) meetings were searched using the same key or text words. Selection criteria Only truly randomised controlled studies comparing FSP with IUI were included in this review. Couples with non-tubal subfertility who have been trying to conceive for at least one year were included. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected the trials for inclusion based on the quality of the studies. Main results Eight studies involving 595 couples were included in the meta-analysis. Only one study reported the live birth rate and there was no evidence of a difference between FSP and IUI (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.5). There was no evidence of a difference between FSP and IUI for clinical pregnancy per couple (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.7). A subgroup analysis which included couples with unexplained subfertility only (n = 239) did not report any difference between FSP and IUI (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.89to2.8). Authors' conclusions For non-tubal subfertility, the results indicate no clear benefit for FSP over IUI. Therefore the advice offered to subfertile couples regarding the comparative use of FSP versus IUI in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility should reflect thi

Microorganismos de montaña y ensilado de maíz como probióticos en la engorda de conejos

There are bacteria that produce lactic acid (LAB) present in the epiphytic microflora of plants, and consortia of mountain microorganisms such as yeasts and mixed cultures that can be used as probiotics and growth promoters in animal production. To evaluate the use of mountain microorganisms in corn silage as probiotics in the fattening of rabbits for 4 weeks, 20 hybrid rabbits were used. Which were chosen randomly in each treatment. The preparation of the probiotics was carried out through an initial anaerobic fermentation stage and a final aerobic one. Treatment (T1) was a diet supplemented with the addition of mountain microorganisms in corn silage (MME) in the drinking water and treatment two or conventional (T2) served as a control without application of MME. The feed consumption and the feed conversion index were calculated, expressed as the mean ± the standard deviation. When performing an analysis of variance (ANOVA), it was established that during week 4 of treatment there was a significant difference (P <0.05) in weight gain and feed conversion between treatments, being favorable for T1 supplemented with MME.Existen bacterias que producen ácido láctico (BAL) presentes en la microflora epifita de los vegetales, y consorcios de microorganismos de montaña como levaduras y cultivos mixtos que pueden ser empleados como probióticos y promotores del crecimiento en la producción animal.Para evaluar el uso de microorganismos de montaña en ensilado de maíz como probióticos en la engorda de conejos durante 4 semanas, se emplearon 20 conejos híbridos. Los cuales se escogieron aleatoriamente en cada tratamiento. La preparación de los probióticos se realizó mediante una etapa de fermentación inicial anaerobia y una final aerobia. El tratamiento (T1) fue una dieta suplementada con la adición de microorganismos de montaña en ensilado de maíz (MME) en el agua de bebida y el tratamiento dos o convencional (T2) fungió como testigo sin aplicación de MME. Se calculó el consumo de alimento y el indicie de conversión alimenticia, expresados como la media ± la desviación estándar. Al realizar un análisis de varianza (ANOVA) se estableció que durante la semana 4 del tratamiento hubo diferencia significativa (P<0.05) en la ganancia de peso y conversión alimenticia entre los tratamientos, siendo favorable para T1 suplementados con MM

Solidarity : A Plan to Restore the Chiquito River and Reclaim Public Space in Morelia, Mexico

El río Chiquito ha tenido un papel central en la historia de Morelia. El primer asentimiento registrado de Valladolid se ubicó en lo que hoy se conoce como los Filtros Viejos. El río fue la principal fuente de abastecimiento de agua potable durante los primeros siglos de la ciudad, y el génesis del icónico acueducto en Morelia. Hoy, sin embargo, la parte urbana del río es símbolo de polución, congestión, e inundaciones para la mayoría de los ciudadanos. Aun así, el río Chiquito es un espacio verde que atraviesa una gran parte de la ciudad, pasando cerca del centro histórico, y cruzando límites demográficos. El río se cuida por algunos residentes, se atraviesa por muchos diariamente, y su potencial es para todos. | The Río Chiquito has played a central role in Morelia’s history. The first registered settlement of pre-Morelia Valladolid was in present-day Filtros Viejos. The river was the city’s primary source of water for centuries, and the genesis of Morelia’s iconic aqueduct. Today, however, the urban part of the river is, for most residents, a symbol of pollution, traffic, and flooding. Nevertheless, the Río Chiquito is a green space that passes through most of the city, near the historic center, and across demographic lines; it is tended by some residents, crossed daily by many, and holds potential for all. La meta de nuestro proyecto es desarrollar—a través de colaboraciones interdisciplinarias y multilaterales—un plan conceptual para alcanzar el potencial del río. Con el amplio apoyo de IMPLAN, CIGA, UBC, entre otros, preparamos este informe de conceptos claves para la restauración ecológica y prosperidad social del río. Esperamos que pueda motivar el dialogo entre los los ciudadanos e instituciones de Morelia, para que en última instancia, el río Chiquito sea tan clave para el futuro de la ciudad como lo fue en su pasado. | The intent of our project is to develop—through cross-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder collaboration—a conceptual plan to help realize the river’s potential. With extensive support from IMPLAN, CIGA, UBC, and others, we have prepared this report to capture key conceptual ideas for the river’s ecological restoration and social flourishing. We hope it will serve to spark the conversation between Morelia’s citizens and its institutions so that the Río Chiquito will ultimately be as central to the city’s future as it has been to its past.Applied Science, Faculty ofNon UBCArchitecture and Landscape Architecture (SALA), School ofCivil Engineering, Department ofCommunity and Regional Planning (SCARP), School ofUnreviewedFacultyGraduat

Intrauterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non-tubal infertility

<p>Background</p><p>Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a common treatment for couples with subfertility that does not involve the fallopian tubes. It is used to bring the sperm close to the released oocyte. Another method of introducing sperm is fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP). Fallopian tube sperm perfusion ensures the presence of higher sperm densities in the fallopian tubes at the time of ovulation than does standard IUI. These treatments are often used in combination with ovarian hyperstimulation.</p><p>Objectives</p><p>To compare intrauterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility, for live birth and pregnancy outcomes.</p><p>Search methods</p><p>We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE from inception to September 2013. We also searched study reference lists and trial registers.</p><p>Selection criteria</p><p>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI with FSP in couples with non-tubal subfertility were included.</p><p>Data collection and analysis</p><p>Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted the data. If studies were sufficiently similar, data were combined using a fixed-effect model to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects model was used if substantial statistical heterogeneity was detected. Studies that included participants with unexplained or mixed (non-tubal) subfertility were analysed separately from studies restricted to participants with mild or moderate male factor subfertility. The overall quality of evidence for the main outcomes was summarised using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.</p><p>Main results</p><p>The review included 16 RCTs. Fourteen RCTs (1745 women) were included in the meta-analysis. Only three studies reported live birth per couple. No evidence of a statistically significant difference was noted between IUI and FSP in live birth (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.49, three RCTs, 633 women, I-2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.12, 14 RCTs, 1745 women, I-2 = 52%, low-quality evidence). These findings suggest that for a couple with a 13% chance of live birth using FSP, the chance when using IUI will be between 8% and 19%; and that for a couple with a 19% chance of pregnancy using FSP, the chance of pregnancy when using IUI will be between 10% and 20%. Nor was evidence found of a statistically significant difference between IUI and FSP in per-pregnancy of multiple pregnancy (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.07, eight RCTs, 197 women, I-2 = 0%, low-quality evidence), miscarriage (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.53, seven RCTs, 199 women, I-2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 6.88, four RCTs, 111 women, I-2 = 0%, very low quality evidence). Substantial heterogeneity was noted for the outcome of clinical pregnancy (I-2 = 54%), for which no clear explanation was provided.</p><p>Authors' conclusions</p><p>Currently no clear evidence suggests any difference between IUI and FSP with respect to their effectiveness and safety for treating couples with non-tubal subfertility. However, a high level of uncertainty is evident in the findings, and additional research may be useful.</p>

Reflexiones sobre la educación en diseño en contextos de emergencia

El libro que tiene en sus manos representa el esfuerzo y compromiso que la planta académica de la División de Ciencias y Artes para el Diseño ha asumido durante la pandemia COVID-19, pasar de un aprendizaje tradicional a un aprendizaje digital, para continuar cumpliendo con el compromiso de nuestra institución: formar ciudadanos y profesionistas de alto nivel. Este libro respeta los cinco ejes temáticos propuestos por el comité organizador. 1. Transición de la enseñanza-aprendizaje mediada por tecnologías digitales. 2. Experiencias significativas para los actores (docentes u alumnos). 3. Propuesta pedagógica innovadora. 4. Reflexión sobre la apropiación de las tecnologías digitales y recursos. 5. Diseño de futuros para una educación en diseño. Cada uno de los artículos que integran esta obra está asociado a alguno de estos ejes. En conjunto representan la base de una gran oportunidad que tiene nuestra División para reinventarse y diversificar las experiencias de aprendizaje además de la modalidad presencial. A esta reflexión colectiva también se han sumado las ideas de profesoras y profesores de otras instituciones, con lo cual la experiencia se ha enriquecido aún más al identificar obstáculos y retos compartidos. Hemos descubierto el potencial de la educación digital y dependerá de nosotros el diseñar las estrategias para aprender a convivir también con la educación presencial. Debemos reconocer que las y los profesores no estaban capacitados para un aprendizaje digital, situación no exclusiva de nuestra casa de estudios, en la mayoría de instituciones del sistema de educación superior tampoco estaban preparados. Además de resaltar la falta de políticas de inclusión para favorecer un aprendizaje digital. Estas dos ideas se vuelven elementos centrales para que las universidades asuman un mayor compromiso al respecto.Coordinadoras e [introducción]: Juana Cecilia Ángeles Cañedo y Alma Elisa Delgado Coellar; [Presentación] 2o. Coloquio de Educación en Diseño / Marco Vinicio Ferruzca Navarro; coordinación editorial: Alma Elisa Delgado Coellar y Martha Ivonne Murillo Islas; diseño de interiores, de portada y formación de interiores: Martha Ivonne Murillo Islas; corrección de estilo: Agustina Larrañaga