Cochrane · systematic review · CD010047
Vitrification versus slow freezing for women undergoing oocyte cryopreservation
Glujovsky, D, Riestra, B, Sueldo, C, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · 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
4
current version
GRADE rated
2
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 50%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 25%Moderate 1 · 25%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
Vitrification versus slow freezing for women undergoing oocyte cryopreservation
Population: subfertile women undergoing oocyte cryopreservation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth Vitrification vs slow freezing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ongoing pregnancy rate Vitrification vs slow freezing | RR 6.07 [0.86, 43.04] | 1 study · 28 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Clinical pregnancy rate Vitrification vs slow freezing | RR 3.86 [1.63, 9.11] | 2 studies · 106 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
Adverse events Vitrification vs slow freezing | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |