Cochrane · systematic review · CD011345
Timed intercourse for couples trying to conceive
Gibbons, T, Reavey, J, Georgiou, EX, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · 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
12
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 8.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 50%Low 3 · 25%Moderate 2 · 16.7%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 onlyTimed intercourse using urinary ovulation detection for couples trying to conceive
Population: couples trying to conceive
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate | RR 1.36 [1.02, 1.81] | 1 study · 844 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse events | MD 1.98 | 1 study · 77 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy rate | RR 1.09 [0.51, 2.31] | 1 study · 148 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pregnancy rate(clinical pregnancy or urine pregnancy test) | RR 1.28 [1.09, 1.5] | 4 studies · 2202 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Time to pregnancy | OR 1.77 [0.1, 3.2] | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Quality of life | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 210 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Timed intercourse using fertility awareness‐based methods (FABM) for couples trying to conceive
Population: couples trying to conceive
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate | RR 0.95 [0.76, 1.2] | 2 studies · 157 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events | MD 0.5 | 1 study · 183 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Clinical pregnancy rate | RR 1.13 [0.31, 4.07] | 1 study · 17 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Pregnancy rate (clinical or positive urine pregnancy test) | RR 1.08 [0.89, 1.3] | 3 studies · 262 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Time to pregnancy | HR 0.86 [0.53, 1.38] | 1 study · 140 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Quality of life – not reported | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Timed intercourse compared to intercourse without ovulation prediction for couples trying to conceive
Population: couples trying to conceive
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate Timed intercourse vs intercourse without ovulation prediction | RR 0.75 [0.16, 3.41] | 1 study · 17 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Adverse event: total stress Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Scale from: 0 to 40. Timed intercourse vs intercourse without ovulation prediction | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 77 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Clinical pregnancy rate Timed intercourse vs intercourse without ovulation prediction | RR 1.1 [0.57, 2.12] | 2 studies · 177 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |
Pregnancy rate (clinical pregnancy and self‐reported pregnancy) Timed intercourse vs intercourse without ovulation prediction | RR 1.35 [1.06, 1.71] | 4 studies · 1387 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, publication bias |