SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
The therapeutic effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Luteinizing hormone activity in ovarian stimulation: comparative efficacy and safety of gonadotropinsFrontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- The Type of Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Medication Given for In Vitro Fertilization Impacts Oocyte Retrieval: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the therapeutic effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.
methodsThe databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to retrieve data on eligible trials from inception until July 2022. The relative risks (RRs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were applied to assess categorical and continuous outcomes, and the pooled results were calculated using the random-effects model. Sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were also performed.
resultsForty-eight trials that enrolled 10,127 women were included in this quantitative meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between rFSH and uFSH/uHMG in the clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.01; 95% CI 0.95-1.07; P = 0.760), live birth rate (RR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.91-1.06; P = 0.665), multiple pregnancy rate (RR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.77-1.09; P = 0.320), miscarriage rate (RR: 1.17; 95% CI 0.94-1.46; P = 0.151), and the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (RR: 1.25; 95% CI 0.91-1.70; P = 0.164). In addition, the administration of rFSH was associated with a higher number of oocyte retrieval compared with that of uFSH/uHMG (WMD: 0.61; 95% CI 0.03-1.20; P = 0.038), while no significant differences were found between rFSH and uFSH/uHMG in the dosage of gonadotrophin (WMD: 14.80; 95% CI - 136.97 to 166.57; P = 0.848) and the duration of ovarian stimulation (WMD: - 0.26; 95% CI - 0.62 to 0.10; P = 0.152). Thus, the exploratory analyses revealed several potential differences in the effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation.
conclusionThe administration of rFSH significantly increased the number of oocytes retrieved, whereas there were no significant differences between the efficacies of rFSH and uFSH/uHMG for pregnancy outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.