What do systematic reviews say?

G‐CSF vs no treatment or placebo

It is very uncertain whether G‐CSF changes ongoing pregnancy rate per woman randomised compared with no treatment or placebo (very low certainty).

• Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.62 [0.86, 3.08]
  1 study · 150 participants
  Very low

G‐CSF vs no treatment or placebo

It is very uncertain whether G‐CSF changes miscarriage rate per woman randomised compared with no treatment or placebo (very low certainty).

• Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  Peto OR 0.4 [0.09, 1.77]
  2 studies · 291 participants
  Very low

G‐CSF vs no treatment or placebo

It is very uncertain whether G‐CSF changes clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised compared with no treatment or placebo (very low certainty).

• Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.65 [1.32, 2.06]
  12 studies · 1050 participants
  Very low

G‐CSF vs no treatment or placebo

G‐CSF showed no clear difference in clinical pregnancy rate ‐ unselected or unstated IVF number compared with no treatment or placebo (low certainty).

• Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.12 [0.75, 1.68]
  2 studies · 291 participants
  Low

G‐CSF vs no treatment or placebo

G‐CSF may leads to higher clinical pregnancy rate ‐ 2 or more IVF failures compared with no treatment or placebo (low certainty).

• Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.1 [1.53, 2.89]
  6 studies · 553 participants
  Low

G‐CSF vs no treatment or placebo

G‐CSF showed no clear difference in clinical pregnancy rate ‐ women with thin endometrium compared with no treatment or placebo (low certainty).

• Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.58 [0.95, 2.63]
  4 studies · 206 participants
  Low

G‐CSF vs no treatment or placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

G‐CSF vs no treatment or placebo

• Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  4 studies · 410 participants
  GRADE not reported

G‐CSF vs placebo

It is very uncertain whether G‐CSF changes overall survival compared with placebo (very low certainty).

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.8 [0.44, 1.46]
  1 study · 64 participants
  Very low

G‐CSF vs placebo

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 64 participants
  Very low

G‐CSF vs placebo

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 111 participants
  Very low

G‐CSF vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

G‐CSF vs placebo

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 167 participants
  Very low

G‐CSF vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

G‐CSF vs placebo

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 64 participants
  Very low

G‐CSF + standard treatment vs usual care

G‐CSF + standard treatment may leads to higher improvement of infection clinical and microbiological assessment compared with usual treatment (low certainty).

• Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factors as adjunctive therapy for diabetic foot infections 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.4 [1.06, 1.85]
  4 studies · 140 participants
  Low

G‐CSF + standard treatment vs usual care

G‐CSF + standard treatment may leads to lower need for surgery: Overall Surgical Interventions compared with usual treatment (low certainty).

• Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factors as adjunctive therapy for diabetic foot infections 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.37 [0.2, 0.68]
  5 studies · 167 participants
  Low

G‐CSF + standard treatment vs usual care

G‐CSF + standard treatment may leads to lower need for surgery: Amputation compared with usual treatment (low certainty).

• Granulocyte‐colony stimulating factors as adjunctive therapy for diabetic foot infections 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.41 [0.18, 0.95]
  5 studies · 167 participants
  Low