Natural cycle FET vs HT + GnRHa FET
Ongoing pregnancy · subfertile women
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
970 questions · 979 findings · 135 reviews
No studies found 182 · 18.6%GRADE not reported 84 · 8.6%Very low 165 · 16.9%Low 311 · 31.8%Moderate 163 · 16.6%High 74 · 7.6%
Natural cycle FET vs HT + GnRHa FET
Multiple pregnancy rate · subfertile women
Natural cycle FET showed no clear difference in multiple pregnancy rate per woman compared with HT plus GnRHa suppression FET (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- OR 0.58 [0.13, 2.5]1 study · 159 participantsLow
Natural cycle FET vs modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger)
Live birth rate per woman · subfertile women
It is very uncertain whether natural cycle FET changes live birth rate per woman compared with modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- OR 0.55 [0.16, 1.93]1 study · 60 participantsVery low
Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values
Caesarean section · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies
Fetal biometry showed no clear difference in caesarean delivery compared with maternal glycaemic values (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.81 [0.59, 1.1]2 studies · 428 participantsLow
Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values
Maternal Hypoglycaemia ‐ not reported · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies
It is very uncertain whether fetal biometry changes hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (including pre‐eclampsia,… compared with maternal glycaemic values (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.8 [0.34, 1.89]2 studies · 325 participantsVery low
Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values
Development of T2DM in mother ‐ not reported · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values
Large‐for‐gestational age · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies
It is very uncertain whether fetal biometry changes large‐for‐gestational age compared with maternal glycaemic values (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.81 [0.38, 1.74]3 studies · 524 participantsVery low
Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values
Shoulder dystocia · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies
It is very uncertain whether fetal biometry changes shoulder dystocia compared with maternal glycaemic values (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.33 [0.01, 7.98]1 study · 96 participantsVery low
Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values
Health status and well‐being – neonatal morbidity and mortality combined · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies
It is very uncertain whether fetal biometry changes composite outcome neonatal morbidity or mortality compared with maternal glycaemic values (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 1 [0.21, 4.71]1 study · 96 participantsVery low
Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values
Neonatal hypoglycaemia · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies
Fetal biometry showed no clear difference in neonatal hypoglycaemia compared with maternal glycaemic values (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.9 [0.57, 1.42]3 studies · 524 participantsLow
Fetal biometry vs maternal glycaemic values
Perinatal mortality · women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their babies
It is very uncertain whether fetal biometry changes perinatal mortality compared with maternal glycaemic values (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Fetal biometry for guiding the medical management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for improving maternal… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.33 [0.01, 7.98]1 study · 96 participantsVery low
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT FET
Live birth rate per woman · subfertile women
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) showed no clear difference in live birth rate per woman compared with HT FET (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- OR 1.34 [0.88, 2.05]1 study · 959 participantsLow
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT FET
Miscarriage · subfertile women
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT FET
Ongoing pregnancy · subfertile women
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) showed no clear difference in ongoing pregnancy rate per woman compared with HT FET (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- OR 1.21 [0.8, 1.83]1 study · 959 participantsLow
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT FET
Multiple pregnancy rate · subfertile women
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT + GnRHa FET
Live birth rate per woman · subfertile women
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) showed no clear difference in live birth rate per woman compared with HT + GnRHa suppression FET (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- OR 1.11 [0.66, 1.87]1 study · 236 participantsLow
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT + GnRHa FET
Miscarriage · subfertile women
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) showed no clear difference in miscarriage rate per woman compared with HT + GnRHa suppression FET (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- OR 0.74 [0.25, 2.19]1 study · 236 participantsLow
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT + GnRHa FET
Ongoing pregnancy · subfertile women
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT + GnRHa FET
Multiple pregnancy rate · subfertile women
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found