Coasting (withholding gonadotrophins) for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Arianna D'Angelo; Nazar N Amso; Rudaina Hassan

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002811.pub4

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Figure 1

Study flow diagram: July 2016 search for 2017 review update

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 3

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 4

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 5

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 6

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 1 OHSS.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Coasting versus no coasting, Outcome 5 Miscarriage.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.6

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.3

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.3

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.4

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.2

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.3

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Coasting versus cabergoline, Outcome 1 OHSS.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.2

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.3

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

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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
Outcomes	Risk with no coasting	Risk with coasting	Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
OHSS	457 per 1000	85 per 1000 (40 to 168)	OR 0.11 (0.05 to 0.24)	207 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^1,2
Live birth	265 per 1000	147 per 1000 (48 to 368)	OR 0.48 (0.14 to 1.62)	68 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW^1,3
Clinical pregnancy	390 per 1000	344 per 1000 (228 to 480)	OR 0.82 (0.46 to 1.44)	207 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^1,2
Multiple pregnancy	268 per 1000	102 per 1000 (42 to 228)	OR 0.31 (0.12 to 0.81)	139 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ LOW^1,2
Miscarriage	57 per 1,000	49 per 1,000 (15 to 148)	OR 0.85 (0.25 to 2.86)	207 (2 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ VERY LOW^1,3
*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

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

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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 LOW^1,2
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 LOW^1,2
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

Summary of findings 2. Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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 LOW^1,2
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)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW^1,3
Multiple pregnancy	181 per 1000	156 per 1000 (79 to 284)	OR 0.84 (0.39 to 1.80)	98 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ VERY LOW^1,2
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

Summary of findings 3. Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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 LOW^1,2
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

Summary of findings 4. Coasting versus follicle stimulating hormone administration at time of hCG for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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.

Summary of findings 5. Coasting compared to cabergoline for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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
Golan 1989

Table 1. Golan classification of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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

Table 2. Navot classification of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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
Rizk 1999

Table 3. Aboulghar and Rizk classification of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (1999)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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

Table 4. Different coasting regimens

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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]

Comparison 1. Coasting versus no coasting

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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]

Comparison 2. Coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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]

Comparison 3. Coasting versus gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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]

Comparison 4. Coasting versus FSH co‐trigger with hCG administration

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

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]

Comparison 5. Coasting versus cabergoline

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet