ORT‐based algorithm vs standard dose of FSH: Live birth or ongoing pregnancy
ORT‐based algorithm showed no clear difference in live birth or ongoing pregnancy compared with standard starting dose of FSH (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
ORT‐based algorithm vs standard starting dose of FSH Live birth or ongoing pregnancy · women undergoing IVF/ICSI ORT‐based algorithm showed no clear difference in live birth or ongoing pregnancy compared with standard starting dose of FSH (low certainty). Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro… (2024) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 1.12 [0.98, 1.29] | 7 studies · 4400 participants | Low |
ORT‐based algorithm vs standard dose of FSH Live birth or ongoing pregnancy · women undergoing IVF/ICSI ORT‐based algorithm showed no clear difference in live birth or ongoing pregnancy compared with standard dose of FSH (moderate certainty). Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro… (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD012693.PUB2, superseded | OR 1.04 [0.88, 1.23] | 4 studies · 2823 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus… 2024 · 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.