evidence/gaps
Cochrane · systematic review · CD005354

Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles

van Wely, M, Kwan, I, Burt, AL, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011 · 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
5
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 5 · 100%

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

rFSH versus urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles

Population: patients with ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles
5 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin
rFSH vs urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses
OR 0.97 [0.87, 1.08]28 studies · 7339 participantsHigh
Live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin ‐ rFSH versus HMG/HMG‐HP
rFSH vs urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses
OR 0.84 [0.72, 0.99]11 studies · 3197 participantsHigh
Live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin ‐ rFSH versus FSH‐P
rFSH vs urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses
OR 1.26 [0.96, 1.64]5 studies · 1430 participantsHigh
Live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) by urinary gonadotrophin ‐ rFSH versus FSH‐HP
rFSH vs urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses
OR 1.03 [0.86, 1.22]13 studies · 2712 participantsHigh
OHSS by urinary gonadotrophin
rFSH vs urinary gonadotrophins: primary analyses
OR 1.18 [0.86, 1.61]32 studies · 7740 participantsHigh