Cochrane · systematic review · CD010550
Natural cycle in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for subfertile couples
Allersma, T, Farquhar, C, Cantineau, AEP · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · 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 2 · 40%Low 1 · 20%Moderate 2 · 40%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
Natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF for subfertile couples
Population: Subfertile couples
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth per woman Natural cycle IVF vs standard IVF | OR 0.68 [0.46, 1.01] | 2 studies · 425 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
OHSS per woman Natural cycle IVF vs standard IVF | OR 0.19 [0.01, 4.06] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy per woman Natural cycle IVF vs standard IVF | OR 0.52 [0.17, 1.61] | 4 studies · 351 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ongoing pregnancy per woman Natural cycle IVF vs standard IVF | OR 0.72 [0.5, 1.05] | 3 studies · 485 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Multiple pregnancy per woman Natural cycle IVF vs standard IVF | OR 0.76 [0.25, 2.31] | 2 studies · 527 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |