Cochrane · systematic review · CD004634
Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques
Georgiou, EX, Melo, P, Cheong, YC, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library
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
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 14.3%Low 5 · 71.4%Moderate 1 · 14.3%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
Current version onlySummary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush compared to aspiration for women undergoing assisted conception
Population: women undergoing assisted conception
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate ‐ total Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration | OR 0.93 [0.59, 1.46] | 4 studies · 467 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage rate ‐ total Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration | OR 1.98 [0.18, 22.22] | 1 study · 164 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Oocyte yield per woman randomised (normally distributed data) Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 1239 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Duration of oocyte retrieval (normally distributed data; seconds) Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 785 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Total number of embryos (normally distributed data) Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 160 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration | OR 1.13 [0.85, 1.51] | 7 studies · 939 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events (dichotomous data) ‐ total Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 3 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Follicular flushing compared with placebo in assisted reproductive techniques
Population: assisted reproductive techniques
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate Follicular flushing vs placebo | OR 0.95 [0.58, 1.56] | 3 studies · 303 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Miscarriage rate Follicular flushing vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Oocyte yield Follicular flushing vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 708 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Duration of oocyte retrieval Follicular flushing vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 714 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Total number of embryos Follicular flushing vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 160 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Clinical pregnancy rate Follicular flushing vs placebo | OR 1.07 [0.78, 1.46] | 5 studies · 704 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events Follicular flushing vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |