Combined oral contraceptive pill vs no pretreatment: Multiple pregnancy rate
Combined oral contraceptive pill showed no clear difference in multiple pregnancy rate (COCP + Ant vs Ant) compared with no pretreatment (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Combined oral contraceptive pill vs no pretreatment Multiple pregnancy rate (COCP + Ant vs Ant) · women undergoing ART Combined oral contraceptive pill showed no clear difference in multiple pregnancy rate (COCP + Ant vs Ant) compared with no pretreatment (low certainty). Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women… (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 2.21 [0.53, 9.26] | 2 studies · 125 participants | Low |
Combined oral contraceptive pill vs no pretreatment Multiple pregnancy rate (COCP + Ant vs Ag) · women undergoing ART Combined oral contraceptive pill showed no clear difference in multiple pregnancy rate (COCP + Ant vs Ag) compared with no pretreatment (moderate certainty). Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women… (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 1.36 [0.85, 2.19] | 4 studies · 546 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted… 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.