Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27659067›Full record

ArticleReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2016

Whether G-CSF administration has beneficial effect on the outcome after assisted reproductive technology? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Zhao, B Xu, S Xie, Q Zhang, Y P Li

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

5 authors.

J ZhaoDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha City, Hunan Province, 410008, People's Republic of China.
B XuDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha City, Hunan Province, 410008, People's Republic of China.
S XieDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha City, Hunan Province, 410008, People's Republic of China.
Q ZhangDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha City, Hunan Province, 410008, People's Republic of China.
Y P LiDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha City, Hunan Province, 410008, People's Republic of China. LYP7798@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies have explored the effect of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration on the outcome of assisted reproductive technology (ART), and came into controversial conclusions. The present meta-analysis aims to assess whether G-CSF administration has beneficial effect on the outcome after ART.

methodThe electronic databases Pubmed, Embase and Google Scholar were searched up to May 2016. Articles that studied the effect of G-CSF administration on the outcome after ART were included in the present meta-analysis. Odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were calculated to assess the effect of G-CSF administration on the outcome after ART. The outcomes of interest were implantation rate (IR) and pregnancy rate (PR).

resultsFour cohort studies with 1101 embryos transplantation assessed the effect of G-CSF administration on IR and 6 studies with 621 cycles assessed the role of G-CSF administration in PR. Meta-analysis did not found an increased embryo IR in G-CSF administration cycles [OR 1.59 (95 % CI 0.74-3.41). whereas the PR with G-CSF administration was significantly higher compared with cases without G-CSF administration [OR 2.03 (95 % CI 1.19-3.46)]. Additionally, we found that G-CSF administrated subcutaneously resulted in significantly higher PR [OR 3.12 (95 % CI 1.67-5.81)] and IR [OR 2.82 (95 % CI 1.29-6.15)] compared with control group, whereas G-CSF administrated via local uterine infusion had no beneficial effect on the PR [OR 1.42 (95 % CI 0.91-2.24)] and IR [OR 1.10 (95 % CI 0.76-1.60)] after ART.

conclusionsG-CSF administration may have beneficial effect on clinical pregnancy outcome after ART. Subcutaneous injection may be an optimal route of G-CSF administration. Further cohort studies are required to explore the mechanisms undergone the effect and investigate the best route and dose of G-CSF administration.

Indexed as

Assisted reproductive technology (ART)Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)Implantation ratePregnancy rate

Identifiers

PMID27659067
PMCPMC5034435

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.