rFSH vs urinary‐derived gonadotrophins: Ongoing pregnancy / live birth rate per woman
rFSH showed no clear difference in live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin compared with urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses (high certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
rFSH vs urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses Live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin · patients with ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles rFSH showed no clear difference in live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin compared with urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses (high certainty). Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles (2011) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.97 [0.87, 1.08] | 28 studies · 7339 participants | High |
rFSH vs urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses Live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin ‐ rFSH versus HMG/HMG‐HP · patients with ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles rFSH leads to lower live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin ‐ rFSH… compared with urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses (high certainty). Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles (2011) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.84 [0.72, 0.99] | 11 studies · 3197 participants | High |
rFSH vs urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses Live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin ‐ rFSH versus FSH‐P · patients with ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles rFSH showed no clear difference in live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin ‐ rFSH… compared with urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses (high certainty). Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles (2011) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 1.26 [0.96, 1.64] | 5 studies · 1430 participants | High |
rFSH vs urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses Live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin ‐ rFSH versus FSH‐HP · patients with ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles rFSH showed no clear difference in live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin ‐ rFSH… compared with urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses (high certainty). Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles (2011) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 1.03 [0.86, 1.22] | 13 studies · 2712 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles 2011 · 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.