Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25480425›Full record

SynthesisJournal of endocrinological investigation2015

Human recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) compared to urinary human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction: a literature review and cost evaluation.

P E Levi Setti, C Alviggi, G L Colombo, C Pisanelli, C Ripellino, S Longobardi, P L Canonico, G De Placido

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of endocrinological investigation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

P E Levi SettiHumanitas Fertility Center, Division of Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Department of Gynaecology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
C AlviggiDipartimento Universitario di Neuroscienze, Scienze Riproduttive ed Odontostomatologiche, Università degli Studi di Napoli, "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
G L ColomboDepartment of Drug Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
C PisanelliHospital Pharmacist, ACO San Filippo Neri, Rome, Italy.
C RipellinoCSD Medical Research Srl, Viale Jenner n 53, 20159, Milan, Italy. claudio.ripellino@cegedim.com.
S LongobardiMedical Department, MerckSerono S.p.A, Rome, Italy.
P L CanonicoDipartimento di Scienze del Farmaco, Università del Piemonte Orientale, Largo Donegani 2, Novara, Italy.
G De PlacidoUniversity Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology, Urology and Reproductive Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Humanitas University · ITMerck Serono (Italy) · ITOspedale San Filippo Neri · ITUniversità degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro” · ITUniversity of Naples Federico II · ITUniversity of Pavia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGonadotropins are protein hormones which are central to the complex endocrine system that regulates normal growth, sexual development, and reproductive function. There is still a lively debate on which type of gonadotropin medication should be used, either human menopausal gonadotropin or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. The objective of the study was to perform a systematic review of the recent literature to compare recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone to human menopausal gonadotropin with the aim to assess any differences in terms of efficacy and to provide a cost evaluation based on findings of this systematic review.

methodsThe review was conducted selecting prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing the two gonadotropin medications from a literature search of several databases. The outcome measure used to evaluate efficacy was the number of oocytes retrieved per cycle. In addition, a cost evaluation was performed based on retrieved efficacy data.

resultsThe number of oocytes retrieved appeared to be higher for human menopausal gonadotropin in only 2 studies while 10 out of 13 studies showed a higher mean number of oocytes retrieved per cycle for recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. The results of the cost evaluation provided a similar cost per oocyte for both hormones.

conclusionsRecombinant follicle-stimulating hormone treatment resulted in a higher oocytes yield per cycle than human menopausal gonadotropin at similar cost per oocyte.

Indexed as

Follicle Stimulating Hormone, HumanMenotropinsOutcome Assessment, Health CareOvulation InductionFemaleHumansFollicle Stimulating Hormone, HumanMenotropinsAssisted reproductionCost evaluationFSHGonadotropinsHMGHuman menopausal gonadotropinInfertilityRecombinant follicle stimulating hormoneSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID25480425
PMCPMC4555088
OpenAlexW1965473967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.