Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

"Coasting" (interrupción de las gonadotrofinas) para la prevención del síndrome de hiperestimulación ovárica

Appendices

Appendix 1. CGF specialised register search strategy

From inception until 6 July 2016

Keywords CONTAINS "superovulation" or "superovulation induction" or "ovarian hyperstimulation" or "ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome" or "ovarian stimulation syndrome" or "*Ovulation Induction"or"OHSS" or Title CONTAINS "IVF" or "superovulation" or "superovulation induction" or "ovarian hyperstimulation" or "ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome" or"OHSS" or "ovarian stimulation syndrome" or "*Ovulation Induction"

AND

Keywords CONTAINS "coasting" or "reduced dose" or Title CONTAINS "coasting" or "reduced dose" (17 hits)

Appendix 2. CENTRAL search strategy

Database: EBM Reviews ‐ Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (OVID platform)

From inception until 6 July 2016

1 exp fertilization in vitro/ or exp sperm injections, intracytoplasmic/ or exp ovulation induction/ or exp superovulation/ (2137)
2 (in vitro fertili#ation or IVF).tw. (3100)
3 (intracytoplasmic sperm injection$ or ICSI).tw. (1143)
4 (ov$ induc$ or ovar$ stimulat$).tw. (1511)
5 superovulation.tw. (141)
6 OHSS.tw. (223)
7 Ovar$ hyperstimulat$.tw. (693)
8 exp Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome/ (142)
9 or/1‐8 (4860)
10 (coasting or coast).tw. (221)
11 (reduc$ adj5 gonadotrophin$).tw. (33)
12 (reduc$ adj5 gonadotropin$).tw. (70)
13 (withdraw$ adj5 gonadotropin$).tw. (7)
14 (withhold$ adj5 gonadotrophin$).tw. (2)
15 (withhold$ adj5 gonadotropin$).tw. (0)
16 (withdraw$ adj5 gonadotrophin$).tw. (2)
17 (Taper$ adj5 (gonadotrophin$ or gonadotropin$)).tw. (0)
18 ((reduc$ or withdraw$ or withhold$ or taper$) adj5 GnRH).tw. (125)
19 or/10‐18 (441)
20 9 and 19 (99)

Appendix 3. MEDLINE search strategy

Database: Ovid MEDLINE(R) In‐Process and Other Non‐Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R) <1950 to 6 July 2016>

Search Strategy:

1 exp fertilization in vitro/ or exp sperm injections, intracytoplasmic/ or exp ovulation induction/ or exp superovulation/ (36459)
2 (in vitro fertili#ation or IVF).tw. (26556)
3 (intracytoplasmic sperm injection$ or ICSI).tw. (7729)
4 (ov$ induc$ or ovar$ stimulat$).tw. (14368)
5 superovulation.tw. (1743)
6 OHSS.tw. (1274)
7 Ovar$ hyperstimulat$.tw. (4127)
8 exp Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome/ (1861)
9 or/1‐8 (55478)
10 (coasting or coast).tw. (17689)
11 (reduc$ adj5 gonadotrophin$).tw. (199)
12 (reduc$ adj5 gonadotropin$).tw. (624)
13 (withdraw$ adj5 gonadotropin$).tw. (58)
14 (withhold$ adj5 gonadotrophin$).tw. (22)
15 (withhold$ adj5 gonadotropin$).tw. (17)
16 (withdraw$ adj5 gonadotrophin$).tw. (36)
17 (Taper$ adj5 (gonadotrophin$ or gonadotropin$)).tw. (1)
18 ((reduc$ or withdraw$ or withhold$ or taper$) adj5 GnRH).tw. (1071)
19 or/10‐18 (19579)
20 9 and 19 (379)
21 randomised controlled trial.pt. (406339)
22 controlled clinical trial.pt. (91305)
23 randomized.ab. (329363)
24 placebo.tw. (171267)
25 clinical trials as topic.sh. (177494)
26 randomly.ab. (237642)
27 trial.ti. (144959)
28 (crossover or cross‐over or cross over).tw. (65362)
29 or/21‐28 (1009451)
30 (animals not (humans and animals)).sh. (3990166)
31 29 not 30 (930198)
32 20 and 31 (81)

Appendix 4. Embase search strategy

From inception until 6 July 2016 (Ovid platform)

1 exp fertilization in vitro/ or exp sperm injections, intracytoplasmic/ or exp ovulation induction/ or exp superovulation/ (55935)
2 (in vitro fertili#ation or IVF).tw. (36892)
3 (intracytoplasmic sperm injection$ or ICSI).tw. (12480)
4 (ov$ induc$ or ovar$ stimulat$).tw. (19154)
5 superovulation.tw. (1896)
6 OHSS.tw. (2064)
7 Ovar$ hyperstimulat$.tw. (5646)
8 exp Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome/ (6868)
9 or/1‐8 (77862)
10 coasting.tw. (276)
11 (reduc$ adj3 gonadotrophin$).tw. (126)
12 (reduc$ adj3 gonadotropin$).tw. (373)
13 (withdrawal adj3 gonadotropin$).tw. (48)
14 (withhold$ adj3 gonadotrophin$).tw. (24)
15 (withhold$ adj3 gonadotropin$).tw. (18)
16 (withdrawal adj3 gonadotrophin$).tw. (21)
17 (Taper$ adj5 (gonadotrophin$ or gonadotropin$)).tw. (1)
18 ((reduc$ or withdraw$ or withhold$ or taper$) adj5 GnRH).tw. (1210)
19 or/10‐18 (1994)
20 9 and 19 (428)
21 Clinical Trial/ (847849)
22 Randomized Controlled Trial/ (377981)
23 exp randomization/ (67354)
24 Single Blind Procedure/ (20623)
25 Double Blind Procedure/ (122094)
26 Crossover Procedure/ (43745)
27 Placebo/ (260138)
28 Randomi?ed controlled trial$.tw. (120388)
29 Rct.tw. (17651)
30 random allocation.tw. (1431)
31 randomly allocated.tw. (22837)
32 allocated randomly.tw. (2036)
33 randomly divided.tw. (46545)
34 (allocated adj2 random).tw. (731)
35 Single blind$.tw. (16081)
36 Double blind$.tw. (152770)
37 ((treble or triple) adj blind$).tw. (462)
38 placebo$.tw. (217599)
39 prospective study/ (299537)
40 or/21‐39 (1514455)
41 case study/ (32879)
42 case report.tw. (286546)
43 abstract report/ or letter/ (931036)
44 or/41‐43 (1244071)
45 40 not 44 (1474939)
46 20 and 45 (119)

Appendix 5. CINAHL search strategy

From inception until 6 July 2016 (EBSCO platform)

#

Query

Results

S18

S11 AND S17

17

S17

S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15 OR S16

52

S16

TX ((reduc* or withdraw* or withhold* or taper*) N5 GnRH*)

19

S15

TX withhold* N3 gonadotrop?in*

1

S14

TX (reduc* N3 gonadotropin*)

14

S13

TX (reduc* N3 gonadotrophin*)

2

S12

TX coasting

18

S11

S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4 OR S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8 OR S9 OR S10

6,214

S10

(MM "Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome")

137

S9

TX Ovar* hyperstimulat*

341

S8

TX OHSS

77

S7

TX superovulation

18

S6

TX (ov* induc* or ovar* stimulat*)

3,094

S5

TX (IVF or ICSI)

1,296

S4

TX (intracytoplasmic sperm injection)

245

S3

TX (in vitro fertili#ation)

2,970

S2

(MM "Ovulation Induction")

240

S1

(MM "Fertilization in Vitro")

1,494

Appendix 6. PsycINFO search strategy

From inception until 6 July 2016

1 exp reproductive technology/ (1466)
2 (in vitro fertili?ation or IVF).tw. (676)
3 (intracytoplasmic sperm injection$ or ICSI).tw. (68)
4 OHSS.tw. (6)
5 Ovar$ hyperstimulat$.tw. (10)
6 or/1‐5 (1714)
7 coasting.tw. (34)
8 (reduc$ adj3 gonadotrophin$).tw. (3)
9 (reduc$ adj3 gonadotropin$).tw. (15)
10 (withdrawal adj3 gonadotropin$).tw. (1)
11 (withhold$ adj3 gonadotrophin$).tw. (0)
12 (withhold$ adj3 gonadotropin$).tw. (0)
13 (withdrawal adj3 gonadotrophin$).tw. (0)
14 or/7‐13 (53)
15 6 and 14 (0)

Study flow diagram: July 2016 search for 2017 review update
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram: July 2016 search for 2017 review update

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Forest plot of comparison: 3 Coasting versus no coasting, outcome: 3.1 OHSS.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 3 Coasting versus no coasting, outcome: 3.1 OHSS.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Coasting versus EUFA, outcome: 1.1 OHSS.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Coasting versus EUFA, outcome: 1.1 OHSS.

Forest plot of comparison: 5 Coasting versus cabergoline, outcome: 5.1 OHSS.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison: 5 Coasting versus cabergoline, outcome: 5.1 OHSS.

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 1 OHSS.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 1 OHSS.

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 2 Live birth.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 2 Live birth.

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy.

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy.

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 5 Miscarriage.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 5 Miscarriage.

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 6 Number of oocytes retrieved.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 6 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 2 Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA), Outcome 1 OHSS.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA), Outcome 1 OHSS.

Comparison 2 Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA), Outcome 2 Clinical Pregnancy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA), Outcome 2 Clinical Pregnancy.

Comparison 2 Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA), Outcome 3 Number of oocytes retrieved.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA), Outcome 3 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 3 Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist), Outcome 1 OHSS.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist), Outcome 1 OHSS.

Comparison 3 Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist), Outcome 2 Clinical Pregnancy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist), Outcome 2 Clinical Pregnancy.

Comparison 3 Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist), Outcome 3 Multiple pregnancy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist), Outcome 3 Multiple pregnancy.

Comparison 3 Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist), Outcome 4 Number of oocytes retrieved.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist), Outcome 4 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 4 Coasting versus FSH co‐trigger with hCG administration, Outcome 1 OHSS.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Coasting versus FSH co‐trigger with hCG administration, Outcome 1 OHSS.

Comparison 4 Coasting versus FSH co‐trigger with hCG administration, Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Coasting versus FSH co‐trigger with hCG administration, Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy.

Comparison 4 Coasting versus FSH co‐trigger with hCG administration, Outcome 3 Number of oocytes retrieved.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Coasting versus FSH co‐trigger with hCG administration, Outcome 3 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 5 Coasting versus cabergoline, Outcome 1 OHSS.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Coasting versus cabergoline, Outcome 1 OHSS.

Comparison 5 Coasting versus cabergoline, Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Coasting versus cabergoline, Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 5 Coasting versus cabergoline, Outcome 3 Number of oocytes retrieved.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Coasting versus cabergoline, Outcome 3 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Coasting versus no coasting for prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Coasting versus no coasting for prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)

Population: Women undergoing assisted reproduction
Setting: Assisted reproduction clinics
Intervention: Coasting
Comparison: No coasting

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with no coasting

Risk with coasting

OHSS

457 per 1000

85 per 1000
(40 to 168)

OR 0.11
(0.05 to 0.24)

207
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW1,2

Live birth

265 per 1000

147 per 1000
(48 to 368)

OR 0.48
(0.14 to 1.62)

68
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,3

Clinical pregnancy

390 per 1000

344 per 1000
(228 to 480)

OR 0.82
(0.46 to 1.44)

207
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW1,2

Multiple pregnancy

268 per 1000

102 per 1000
(42 to 228)

OR 0.31
(0.12 to 0.81)

139
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
LOW1,2

Miscarriage

57 per 1,000

49 per 1,000

(15 to 148)

OR 0.85

(0.25 to 2.86)

207
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,3

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the mean risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 Downgraded one level for serious risk of bias: one study did not clearly describe the methods used, studies not blinded

2 Downgraded one level for serious imprecision: few events, wide confidence intervals, or both

3 Downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision: very few events, very wide confidence intervals, or both

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Coasting versus no coasting for prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
Summary of findings 2. Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)

Population: Women undergoing assisted reproduction
Setting: Assisted reproduction clinics
Intervention: Coasting
Comparison: Early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA)

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA)

Risk with coasting

OHSS

244 per 1000

240 per 1000
(99 to 479)

OR 0.98
(0.34 to 2.85)

83
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2

Live birth

No data available

Clinical Pregnancy

317 per 1000

237 per 1000
(104 to 454)

OR 0.67
(0.25 to 1.79)

83
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2

Multiple pregnancy

No data available

Miscarriage

No data available

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the mean risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 Downgraded one level for serious risk of bias: one study did not clearly describe methods, lack of blinding

2 Downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision: very few events and very wide confidence intervals

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 2. Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
Summary of findings 3. Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)

Population: Women undergoing assisted reproduction
Setting: Assisted reproduction clinics
Intervention: Coasting
Comparison: Gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist

Risk with coasting

OHSS

Not estimable

Not estimable

not estimable

190
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2

Live birth

No data available

Clinical Pregnancy

553 per 1000

478 per 1000
(342 to 619)

OR 0.74
(0.42 to 1.31)

190
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW1,3

Multiple pregnancy

181 per 1000

156 per 1000
(79 to 284)

OR 0.84
(0.39 to 1.80)

98
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2

Miscarriage

No data available

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the mean risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 Downgraded one level due to serious risk of bias: method of sequence generation not reported, lack of blinding

2 Downgraded two levels due to very serious imprecision: no OHSS occurred in either group. Few events for multiple pregnancy.

3 Downgraded one level due to serious imprecision. Wide confidence intervals, few events

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 3. Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
Summary of findings 4. Coasting versus follicle stimulating hormone administration at time of hCG for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Coasting versus follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) administration at time of hCG trigger in preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)

Population: Women undergoing assisted reproduction
Setting: Assisted reproduction clinics
Intervention: Coasting
Comparison: FSH co‐trigger with hCG administration

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with FSH co‐trigger with hCG administration

Risk with Coasting

OHSS

Not estimable

Not estimable

OR 43.74
(2.54 to 754.58)

102
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2

Live birth

No data available

Clinical Pregnancy

510 per 1000

489 per 1000
(309 to 676)

OR 0.92
(0.43 to 2.01)

102
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝1,3
LOW

Multiple pregnancy

No data available

Miscarriage

No data available

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the mean risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio; hCG: human chorionic gonadotrophin

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 Downgraded one level due to serious risk of bias: method of sequence generation not reported, lack of blinding

2 Downgraded two levels due to very serious imprecision: only 15 events, all in one arm.

3 Downgraded one level due to serious imprecision: very wide confidence intervals

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 4. Coasting versus follicle stimulating hormone administration at time of hCG for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
Summary of findings 5. Coasting compared to cabergoline for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Coasting compared to cabergoline for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)

Population: Women undergoing assisted reproduction
Setting: Assisted reproduction clinics
Intervention: Coasting
Comparison: Cabergoline

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with cabergoline

Risk with Coasting

OHSS

100 per 1000

180 per 1000
(71 to 387)

OR 1.98
(0.69 to 5.68)

120
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝1,2
VERY LOW

Live birth

Not reported

Clinical pregnancy rate

367 per 1000

180 per 1000
(85 to 338)

OR 0.38

(0.16 to 0.88)

120
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝1
VERY LOW

Multiple pregnancy

Not reported

Miscarriage

Not reported

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the mean risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 Downgraded two levels due to very serious risk of bias: one study did not clearly define method, method of sequence generation not reported, lack of blinding

2 Downgraded one level due to serious imprecision: very few events and/or wide confidence interval.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 5. Coasting compared to cabergoline for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
Table 1. Golan classification of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Classification

Size of ovaries

Grade

Symptoms

Mild

5 to 10 cm

grade 1

abdominal tension and discomfort

grade 2

grade 1 signs plus nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, or a combination

Moderate

> 10 cm

grade 3

grade 2 signs plus ultrasound evidence of ascites

Severe

> 12 cm

grade 4

grade 3 signs plus clinical evidence of ascites, pleural effusion and dyspnoea, or a combination

grade 5

grade 4 signs plus haemoconcentration increased blood viscosity, hypovolaemia, decreased renal perfusion, oliguria

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Golan classification of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
Table 2. Navot classification of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Severe

Critical

Variably enlarged ovary

Variably enlarged ovary

Massive ascites ± hydrothorax

Tense ascites ± hydrothorax

Hct > 45% (> 30% increment over baseline value)

Hct > 55%

WBC > 15,000

WBC > 35,000

Oliguria

Creatinine 1.0 to 1.5

Creatinine > 1.6

Creatinine clearance > 50 ml/min

Creatinine clearance < 50ml/min

Liver dysfunction

Renal failure

Anasarca

Thromboembolic phenomena

Adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)

Navot 1992

Hct: haematocrit

WBC: white blood cells

Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Navot classification of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
Table 3. Aboulghar and Rizk classification of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (1999)

Moderate

Severe Grade A

Severe Grade B

Severe Grade C

Discomfort, pain, nausea, distension, ultrasonic evidence of ascites and enlarged ovaries, normal haematological and biological profile

Dyspnoea, oliguria, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, clinical evidence of ascites, marked distension of abdomen or hydro‐thorax, US showing large ovaries and marked ascites, normal biochemical profile

Grade A plus massive tension ascites, markedly enlarged ovaries, severe dyspnoea and marked oliguria, increased haematocrit, elevated serum creatinine and liver dysfunction

Complications such as respiratory distress syndrome, renal shut‐down, or venous thrombosis

Figures and Tables -
Table 3. Aboulghar and Rizk classification of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (1999)
Table 4. Different coasting regimens

Authors

E2 at coasting

E2 at hCG

Number and follicle size

Coasting time

Sher 1995

> 3000 pg/mL or > 11,000 pmol/L*

< 3000 pg/mL or < 11,000 pmol/L*

> 29 follicles at least 30% > 15 mm

3 to 11 days (mean 6.1)

Benadiva 1997

≥ 3000 pg/ml or ≥ 11,000 pmol/l*

< 3000 pg/ml or < 11,000 pmol/l*

at least 3 follicles of 15.6 ± 1.4 mm

1.9 ± 0.9 days

Tortoriello 1998

> 3000 pg/ml or > 11,000 pmol/l*

< 3000 pg/mL or < 11,000 pmol/L*

5 follicles at least 16 mm, two of which are at least 19 mm

1 to 5 days

Dhont 1998

> 2500 pg/ml or > 9000 pmol/l*

< 2500 pg/ml or < 9000 pmol/l*

≥ 20 follicles > 15 mm

1 to 6 days (mean 1.94)

Lee 1998

> 2700 pg/ml or > 10,000 pmol/l*

no values given

many immature follicles < 3 at 18 mm

3 days

VanderStraeten 1998

> 2500 pg/ml or > 9000 pmol/l*

< 2500 pg/ml or < 9000 pmol/l*

≥ 20 follicles > 14 mm

1 to 6 days (mean 1.94)

Egbase 1999

> 6000 pg/ml or > 22,000 pmol/l*

< 3000 pg/ml or 11,000 pmol/l*

> 15 follicles, each of > 18 mm in each ovary

4.9 ± 1.6 days

Waldenstrom 1999

> 2700 pg/ml or > 10,000 pmol/l*

< 2700 pg/ml or < 10,000 pmol/l*

> 25 follicles, at least 3 follicles > 17 mm

3 to 6 days (mean 4.3)

Fluker 1999

> 3000 pg/ml or > 11,000 pmol/l*

25% decline < 2250 pg/ml or 8250 pmol/l*

> 3 follicles of > 18 mm

3 to 5 days (mean 3.4 ± 0.1)

Al‐Shawaf 2001

> 3600 pg/ml or > 13,000 pmol/l*

< 2700 pg/ml or < 10,000 pmol/l*

at least 25% of the follicles > 15 mm

2 to 9 days (mean 3.4 ± 1.6)

Aboulghar 1998

> 3000 pg/ml or > 11,000 pmol/l*

< 5500 pg/ml or < 20,000 pmol/l*

> 20 follicles at least 15 mm

2.8 days

Ulug 2002

> 4000 pg/ml or > 14,684 pmol/l*

< 4000 pg/ml or < 14,684 pmol/l*

> 20 follicles, at least 30% of them >15 mm

2.9 ± 0.33 days

* conversion factor to SI unit, 3.671

Figures and Tables -
Table 4. Different coasting regimens
Comparison 1. Coasting versus no coasting

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 OHSS Show forest plot

2

207

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [0.05, 0.24]

2 Live birth Show forest plot

1

68

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.14, 1.62]

3 Clinical pregnancy Show forest plot

2

207

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.46, 1.44]

4 Multiple pregnancy Show forest plot

1

139

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.12, 0.81]

5 Miscarriage Show forest plot

2

207

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.25, 2.86]

6 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

2

207

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.86 [‐4.38, ‐3.33]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Coasting versus no coasting
Comparison 2. Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 OHSS Show forest plot

2

83

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.34, 2.85]

2 Clinical Pregnancy Show forest plot

2

83

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.25, 1.79]

3 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

2

83

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.42 [‐6.08, ‐2.75]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA)
Comparison 3. Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 OHSS Show forest plot

1

190

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Clinical Pregnancy Show forest plot

1

190

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.42, 1.31]

3 Multiple pregnancy Show forest plot

1

190

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.39, 1.80]

4 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

1

190

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.44 [‐4.30, ‐0.58]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist)
Comparison 4. Coasting versus FSH co‐trigger with hCG administration

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 OHSS Show forest plot

1

102

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

43.74 [2.54, 754.58]

2 Clinical pregnancy Show forest plot

1

102

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.43, 2.01]

3 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

1

102

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐17.80 [‐19.05, ‐16.55]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Coasting versus FSH co‐trigger with hCG administration
Comparison 5. Coasting versus cabergoline

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 OHSS Show forest plot

2

120

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.98 [0.69, 5.68]

2 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

2

120

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.16, 0.88]

3 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

1

60

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.30 [‐7.88, ‐0.72]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Coasting versus cabergoline