Question · asked by 1 review
Ovarian stimulating drugs in subfertile women vs subfertile women not treated or versus general population: Risk of borderline ovarian cancer in subfertile women exposed to ovarian stimulating drugs vs unexposed women (summary of case‐control studies suggesting an increase)
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Ovarian stimulating drugs in subfertile women vs subfertile women not treated or versus general population Risk of borderline ovarian tumours in subfertile women exposed to ovarian stimulating drugs vs unexposed women (summary of cohort studies suggesting increased risk) · for subfertile women Risk of ovarian cancer in women treated with ovarian stimulating drugs for infertility (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 1381732 participants | Very low |
Ovarian stimulating drugs in subfertile women vs subfertile women not treated or versus general population Risk of borderline ovarian cancer in subfertile women exposed to ovarian stimulating drugs vs unexposed women (summary of case‐control studies suggesting an increase) · for subfertile women Risk of ovarian cancer in women treated with ovarian stimulating drugs for infertility (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 28 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk of ovarian cancer in women treated with ovarian stimulating drugs for infertility 2019 · 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.