Cochrane · systematic review · CD000099
Growth hormone for in vitro fertilisation (IVF)
Sood, A, Mohiyiddeen, G, Ahmad, G, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · Cochrane Library
Gynaecology and FertilityAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
14
current version
GRADE rated
14
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 9 · 64.3%Low 5 · 35.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: routine use for in vitro fertilisation (IVF)
Population: women with infertility
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate per woman randomised Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: routine use | OR 1.32 [0.4, 4.43] | 2 studies · 80 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: routine use | OR 1.78 [0.49, 6.5] | 1 study · 42 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved per woman randomised Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: routine use | OR 2.86 [0.11, 74.31] | 1 study · 42 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mean number of oocytes retrieved Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: routine use | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 80 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Embryo transfer achieved per woman randomised Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: routine use | OR 7.36 [0.36, 151.91] | 1 study · 42 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mean units of gonadotrophin used Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: routine use | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 80 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: routine use | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 80 participants | Low |
Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: poor responders for in vitro fertilisation (IVF)
Population: women with infertility subclassified as poor responders
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate per woman randomised Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: poor responders | OR 1.77 [1.17, 2.7] | 8 studies · 737 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: poor responders | OR 1.85 [1.35, 2.53] | 11 studies · 1033 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, publication bias |
Number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved per woman randomised Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: poor responders | OR 5.67 [1.54, 20.83] | 2 studies · 148 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Mean number of oocytes retrieved Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: poor responders | no estimate extracted | 12 studies · 1153 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Embryo transfer achieved per woman randomised Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: poor responders | OR 2.32 [1.08, 4.96] | 4 studies · 214 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Mean units gonadotropin used Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: poor responders | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 685 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Adverse events Adjuvant growth hormone vs no adjuvant: poor responders | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 512 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |