Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone vs urinary‐derived gonadotrophins: Clinical pregnancy rate
Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone showed no clear difference in clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with urinary‐derived gonadotrophins (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone vs urinary‐derived gonadotrophins Clinical pregnancy rate per woman · women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) undergoing ovulation induction Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone showed no clear difference in clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with urinary‐derived gonadotrophins (low certainty). Gonadotrophins for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.05 [0.88, 1.27] | 8 studies · 1330 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gonadotrophins for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome 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.