GM‐CSF‐supplemented culture media vs culture media not supplemented with GM‐CSF: Miscarriage
GM‐CSF‐supplemented culture media showed no clear difference in miscarriage compared with culture media not supplemented with GM‐CSF (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
GM‐CSF‐supplemented culture media vs culture media not supplemented with GM‐CSF Miscarriage · women undergoing assisted reproduction GM‐CSF‐supplemented culture media showed no clear difference in miscarriage compared with culture media not supplemented with GM‐CSF (low certainty). GM‐CSF (granulocyte macrophage colony‐stimulating factor) supplementation in culture media for women… (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.75 [0.41, 1.36] | 2 studies · 1432 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| GM‐CSF (granulocyte macrophage colony‐stimulating factor) supplementation in culture media for women undergoing assisted reproduction 2020 · 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.