Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Vorbehandlung mit oraler Verhütungspille, Gestagen oder Östrogen bei Protokollen zur Stimulation der Eierstöcke für Frauen, die sich einer künstlichen Befruchtung unterziehen

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

References to studies included in this review

Aston 1995 {published data only}

Aston K, Arthur I, Masson GM, Jenkins JM. Progestogen therapy and prevention of functional ovarian cysts during pituitary desensitisation with GnRH agonists. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1995;102:835‐7. CENTRAL

Biljan 1998b {published data only}

Biljan MM, Mahutte NG, Dean N, Hemmings R, Bissonnette F. Prospective randomized trial on effect of pre‐treatment with an oral contraceptive (OC) on the length of time required for pituitary suppression by gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRH‐a) and subsequent implantation and pregnancy rates. Fertility and Sterility1998; Vol. Suppl 1, 70, issue 3:S133. CENTRAL
Biljan MM, Mahutte NG, Dean N, Hemmings R, Bissonnette F, Tan SL. Effects of pretreatment with an oral contraceptive on the time required to achieve pituitary suppression with gonadotropin‐releasing hormone analogues and on subsequent implantation and pregnancy rates. Fertility and Sterility 1998;70(6):1063‐9. CENTRAL

Blockeel 2012 {published data only}

Blockeel C, Engels S, de Vos M, Haentjens P, Polyzos NP, Stoop D, et al. Oestradiol valerate pretreatment in GnRH antagonist cycles: a randomised controlled trial. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2012;24:272‐80. CENTRAL

Cédrin‐Durnerin 2007 {published data only}

Cédrin‐Durnerin I, Bständig B, Parneix I, Bied‐Damon V, Avril C, Decanter C, et al. Effects of oral contraceptive, synthetic progestogen or natural estrogen pre‐treatments on the hormonal profile and the antral follicle cohort before GnRH antagonist protocol. Human Reproduction 2007;22(1):109‐16. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/de1340]CENTRAL
Hugues JN, Cédrin‐Durnerin I, Bständig B, Parneix I, Bied‐Damon V, Avril C, et al. Consequences of different steroid pre‐treatments on the hormonal profile and on the antral follicular count prior to an IVF antagonist protocol. 21st Annual Meeting of the ESHRE; 2005 Jun 19‐22; Copenhagen, Denmark. 2005. CENTRAL

Cédrin‐Durnerin 2012 {published data only}

Cédrin‐Durnerin I, Guivarc'h‐Leveque A, Hugues J‐N. Pretreatment with estrogen does not affect IVF‐ICSI cycle outcome compared with no pretreatment in GnRH antagonist protocol: a prospective randomised trial. Fertility and Sterility 2012;97(6):1359‐64. CENTRAL

Daly 2002 {published data only}

Daly DC, Daly CL, Mayo D, Jacobs A. Oocyte recruitment in IVF patients with limited ovarian reserve (LOR), maximizing quality of oocytes and embryos. Fertility and Sterility2002; Vol. Suppl 1, 78, issue 3:S148‐9. CENTRAL

Ditkoff 1996 {published data only}

Ditkoff EC, Sauer MV. A combination of norethindrone acetate and leuprolide acetate blocks the gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone agonistic response and minimizes cyst formation during ovarian stimulation. Human Reproduction 1996;11(5):1035‐7. CENTRAL

Engmann 1999 {published data only}

Engmann L, Maconochie N, Bekir J, Tan SL. A prospective randomized study to assess the effect of progestogen therapy during pituitary desensitization with GnRH agonist in the prevention of functional ovarian cyst formation. Abstracts from ASRM/CFAS Conjoint Annual Meeting. Toronto, Canada, 1999. Fertility and Sterility 1999;72(3, Suppl 1):S10‐1. CENTRAL
Engmann L, Maconochie N, Bekir J, Tan SL. Progestogen therapy during pituitary desensitization with gonadotropin‐releasing hormone agonist prevents functional ovarian cyst formation: a prospective, randomized study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999;181(3):576‐82. CENTRAL
Engmann L, Maconochie N, Tan SL, Bekir J. Progestogen therapy during pituitary desensitization with GnRH agonist prevents functional ovarian cyst formation ‐ a prospective randomized study. Human Fertility. 1999; Vol. 2:190‐1. CENTRAL

Fanchin 2003 {published data only}

Fanchin R, Salomon L, Castelo‐Branco A, Olivennes F, Frydman N, Frydman R. Luteal estradiol administration coordinates FSH‐induced follicular growth and improves the outcome of GnRH antagonist COH protocols. 19th Annual meeting of the ESHRE; 2003 Jun 29‐Jul 2; Madrid, Spain, 2003. 2003. CENTRAL
Fanchin R, Salomon L, Castelo‐Branco A, Olivennes F, Frydman N, Frydman R. Luteal estradiol pre‐treatment coordinates follicular growth during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonists. Human Reproduction 2003;18(12):2698‐703. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deg516]CENTRAL

Franco Jr 2003 {published data only}

Franco JG, Baruffi RLR, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Felipe V, Contart P. Comparison of ovarian stimulation with recombinant FSH after 2nd phase protocols with GnRH analogs (I ‐ estradiol + Ganirelix versus II ‐ Nafarelin) [Comparação da estimulação ovariana com FSH recombinante após protocolo de 2a fase com análogos do GnRH (I ‐ estradiol + Ganirelix versus II ‐ Nafarelin)]. Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida 2003;7(1):26‐32. CENTRAL

Garcia‐Velasco 2011 {published data only}

Garcia‐Velasco JA, Bermejo A, Ruiz F, Martinez‐Salazar J, Requena A, Pellicer A. Cycle scheduling with oral contraceptive pills in the GnRH antagonist protocol vs the long protocol: a randomized, controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 2011;96(3):590‐3. CENTRAL
Garcia‐Velasco JA, Bermejo A, Ruiz‐Flores F, Martinez‐Salazar J, Requena A, Pellicer A. Cycle scheduling with oral contraceptive pills in GnRH antagonist protocol vs long protocol: a randomized, controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 2010;94 Suppl 1(4):S28 Abstract no. O‐93. CENTRAL

Hauzman 2013 {published data only}

Hauzman EE, Zapata A, Bermejo A, Iglesias C, Pellicer A, Garcia‐Velasco J. Cycle scheduling for in vitro fertilisation with oral contraceptive pills versus oral estradiol valerate: a randomised controlled trial. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 2013;11:96. CENTRAL

Hugues 1994 {published data only}

Hugues JN, Cédrin‐Durnerin I, Hervé F, Huet‐Pecqueux L, Santarelli J. Incidence of preprogrammed norethisterone on the intensity of 'flare up' (flush) caused by GnRH agonist according to the IVF protocol [poster] [Incidence d'une préprogrammation par la noréthistérone sur la qualité du flare‐up induit par un agoniste du GnRH en protocole court de FIV]. Contraception, Fertilite, Sexualite1994; Vol. 22, issue 5:331. CENTRAL

Huirne 2006a {published data only}

Huirne JAF, van Loenen ACD, Donnez J, Pirard C, Homburg R, Schats R, et al. Effect of an oral contraceptive pill on follicular development in IVF/ICSI patients receiving a GnRH antagonist: a randomized study. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2006;13(2):235‐45. CENTRAL
Van Loenen ACD, Huirne JAF, Schats R, Donnez J, Lambalk CB. An open‐label multicentre, randomized, parallel, controlled phase II study to assess the feasibility of a new programming regimen using an oral contraceptive prior to the administration of recombinant FSH and a GnRH‐antagonist in patients undergoing ART (IVF‐ICSI) treatment. Human Reproduction. 2002; Vol. 17 Abstract Book 1:144‐5. CENTRAL

Huirne 2006c {published data only}

Huirne JA, Hugues JN, Pirard C, Fischl F, Sage JC, Pouly JL, et al. Cetrorelix in an oral contraceptive‐pretreated stimulation cycle compared with buserelin in IVF/ICSI patients treated with r‐hFSH: a randomized, multicentre, phase IIIb study. Human Reproduction 2006;21(6):1408‐15. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/de1030]CENTRAL

Hwang 2004 {published data only}

Hwang JL, Seow KM, Lin YH, Huang LW, Hsieh BC, Tsai YL, et al. Ovarian stimulation by concomitant administration of cetrorelix acetate and HMG following Diane‐35 pre‐treatment for patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a prospective randomized study. Human Reproduction 2004;19(9):1993‐2000. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh375]CENTRAL

Kim 2011 {published data only}

Kim C‐H, Jeon G‐H, Cheon Y‐P, Jeon I, Kim S‐H, Chae H‐D, et al. Comparison of GnRH antagonist protocol with or without oral contraceptive pill pretreatment and GnRH agonist low‐dose long protocol in low responders undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertility and Sterility 2009;92(5):1758‐60. CENTRAL
Kim C‐H, You R‐M, Kang H‐J, Ahn J‐W, Lee J‐I, Kim S‐H, et al. GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol with oral contraceptive pill pre‐treatment in poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI. Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine 2011;38(4):228‐33. CENTRAL
Kim CH, Lee HA, Lee JW, Lee YJ, Nah HY, Hong SH, et al. The efficacy of oral contraceptive pretreatment in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using a GnRH antagonist for low responders [poster]. Human Reproduction. 2005; Vol. 20 Suppl 1:i105‐6. CENTRAL

Kolibianakis 2006 {published data only}

Kolibianakis EM, Albano C, Tournaye H, Camus M, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. Pre‐treatment with oral contraceptive pill affects adversely implantation rate in IVF/ICSI cycles stimulated with rec‐FSH and GnRH antagonists. Fertility and Sterility2003; Vol. 80, issue Suppl 3:S67. CENTRAL
Kolibianakis EM, Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Tournaye H, Van Steirteghem AC, Devroey P. Effect of oral contraceptive pill pretreatment on ongoing pregnancy rates in patients stimulated with GnRH antagonists and recombinant FSH for IVF. A randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2006;21(2):352‐7. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dei348]CENTRAL

Lukaszuk 2015 {published data only}

Lukaszuk K, Liss J, Kunicki M, Kuczynski W, Pastuszek E, Jakiel G, et al. Estradiol valerate pretreatment in short protocol GNRH‐agonist cycles versus combined pretreatment with oral contraceptive pills in long protocol GNRH‐agonist cycles: a randomised controlled trial. BioMed Research International 2015;2015:1‐6. CENTRAL

Nyboe Andersen 2011 {published data only}

Broekmans JF, Verweij PJM, Eijkemans MJC, Mannaerts NMJL, Witjes H. Prognostic models for high and low ovarian responses in controlled ovarian stimulation using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Human Reproduction 2014;29(8):1688‐97. CENTRAL
Nyboe Andersen A, Witjes H, Gordon K, Mannaerts B. Predictive factors of ovarian response and clinical outcome after IVF/ICSI following a rFSH/GnRH antagonist protocol with or without oral contraceptive pretreatment. Human Reproduction 2011;26(12):3413‐23. CENTRAL
Tavmergen E, von Mauw, Witjes H, Mannaerts B. Outcome of a trial to identify predicative factors for ovarian response in a GnRH antagonist protocol with or without oral contraceptive scheduling. 25th Annual Meeting of ESHRE; 2009 28 Jun‐1 Jul; Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2009. CENTRAL

Obruca 2002 {published data only}

Obruca A, Fischl F, Huber J. Programming oocyte retrieval using oral contraceptive pretreatment before ovarian stimulation with a GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) protocol. Human Reproduction. 2002; Vol. 17 Abstract Book 1:89. CENTRAL

Porrati 2010 {published data only}

Porrati L, Vilela M, Viglierchio MI, Valcarcel A, Lombardi E, Marconi G. Oral contraceptive pretreatment achieves better pregnancy rates in IVF antagonists GnRH flexible protocols: a prospective randomized study. Human Reproduction 2010;25 Suppl 1(6):i102 Abstract no. O‐259. CENTRAL

Raoofi 2008 {published data only}

Raoofi Z, Aflatoonian A. Ovarian cysts formation during depot formulation of GnRH‐a therapy and the effect of pretreatment with oral contraceptive pills on subsequent implantation and pregnancy rate in ART cycles. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research 2008;7(2):109‐13. CENTRAL

Rombauts 2006 {published data only}

Rombauts L, Healy D, Norman RJ, Speirs A, Watkins B, Yovich J, et al. A comparative randomized trial to assess the impact of oral contraceptive pretreatment on follicular growth and hormone profiles in GnRH antagonist‐treated patients. Human Reproduction 2006;21(1):95‐103. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dei302]CENTRAL

Salat‐Baroux 1988 {published data only}

Salat‐Baroux J, Antoine JM, Alvarez S, Cornet D, Tibi C, Mandelbaum J, et al. Programmed ovulation induction and oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization. Journal of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer 1988;5(3):153‐7. CENTRAL

Shaker 1995 {published data only}

Shaker AG, Pittrof R, Zaidi J, Bekir J, Kyei‐Mensah A, Tan SL. Administration of progestogens to hasten pituitary desensitization after the use of gonadotropin‐releasing hormone agonist in in vitro fertilization ‐ a prospective randomized study. Fertility and Sterility 1995;64(4):791‐5. CENTRAL

Tan 2001 {published data only}

Tan SL, Biljan M. Fixed scheduling of long protocol of GNRH agonists ‐ use of oral contraceptive (OC) or progestogen pre‐treatment. Gynecological Endocrinology. 2001; Vol. 15 Suppl 2:31. CENTRAL

Vilela 2011 {unpublished data only}

Vilela M, Marconi M, Zappacosta MP, Porrati L, Valcarcel A, Marconi G. Oral contraceptive (OcP) pretreatment achieves better pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) antagonists GnRH flexible protocols: a prospective randomised study. Fertility and Sterility2011; Vol. 96, issue 3 (supplement):S252, P‐492. CENTRAL

Ye 2009 {published data only}

Ye H, Huang G‐N, Zeng P‐H, Pei L. IVF/ICSI outcomes between cycles with luteal estradiol (E2) pre‐treatment before GnRH antagonist protocol and standard long GnRH agonist protocol: a prospective and randomized study. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2009;26(2‐3):105‐11. CENTRAL

References to studies excluded from this review

Aghahosseini 2011 {published data only}

Aghahosseini M, Aleyassin A, Khodaverdi S, Esfahani F, Mohammadbeigi R, Movahedi S, et al. Estradiol supplementation during the luteal phase in poor responder patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2011;28:785‐90. CENTRAL

al‐Mizyen 2000 {published data only}

al‐Mizyen E, Sabatini L, Lower AM, Wilson CMY, al‐Shawaf T, Grudzinskas JG. Does pretreatment with progestogen or oral contraceptive pills in low responders followed by the GnRHa flare protocol improve the outcome of IVF‐ET?. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2000;17(3):140‐6. CENTRAL

Anderson 1990 {published data only}

Anderson RE, Stein AL, Paulson RJ, Stanczyk FZ, Vijod AG, Lobo RA. Effects of norethindrone on gonadotropin and ovarian‐steroid secretion when used for cycle programming during in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 1990;54(1):96‐101. CENTRAL

Bakas 2014 {published data only}

Bakas P, Hassiakos D, Grigoriadis C, Vlahos NF, Liapis A, Creatsas G. Effect of a low dose combined oral contraceptive pill on the hormonal profile and cycle outcome following COS with a GnRH antagonist protocol in women over 35 years old. Gynecological Endocrinology 2014;30(11):825‐9. CENTRAL

Bellver 2007 {published data only}

Bellver J, Albert C, Labarta E, Pellicer A. Early pregnancy loss in women stimulated with gonadotropin‐releasing hormone antagonist protocols according to oral contraceptive pill pretreatment. Fertility and Sterility 2007;87(5):1098‐101. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.08.098]CENTRAL

Benadiva 1988 {published data only}

Benadiva CA, Ben‐Rafael Z, Blasco L, Tureck R, Mastroianni LJ, Flickinger GL. Ovarian response to human menopausal gonadotropin following suppression with oral contraceptives. Fertility and Sterility 1988;50(3):516‐8. CENTRAL

Bendikson 2006 {published data only}

Bendikson K, Milki AA, Speck‐Zulak A, Westphal LM. Comparison of GnRH antagonist cycles with and without oral contraceptive pretreatment in potential poor prognosis patients. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006;33(3):145‐7. CENTRAL

Biljan 1998c {published data only}

Biljan MM, Mahutte NG, Dean N, Hemmings R, Bissonnette F, Tan SL. Pretreatment with an oral contraceptive is effective in reducing the incidence of functional ovarian cyst formation during pituitary suppression by gonadotropin‐releasing hormone analogues. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1998;15(10):599‐604. CENTRAL

Branigan 1998 {published data only}

Branigan EF, Estes MA. Treatment of high responders with oral contraceptive pills (OC) before ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF. Fertility and Sterility1998; Vol. 69, issue 3:599. CENTRAL

Brodt 1993 {published data only}

Brodt J, Taubert HD. Planned ovarian stimulation with preadministered contraceptives in an in‐vitro fertilization program [Programmierte ovarielle stimulation mittels ovulationshemmer‐vorbehandlung in einem in vitro fertilisations(IVF)‐programm]. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 1993;254(1‐4):246‐8. CENTRAL

Cédrin‐Durnerin 1995 {published data only}

Cédrin‐Durnerin I, Hervé F, Huet‐Pecqueux L, Kottler ML, Hugues JN. Progestogen pretreatment in the short‐term protocol does not affect the prognostic value of the oestradiol flare‐up in response to a GnRH agonist. Human Reproduction 1995;10(11):2904‐8. CENTRAL

Cédrin‐Durnerin 1996 {published data only}

Cédrin‐Durnerin I, Bulwa S, Hervé F, Martin‐Pont B, Uzan M, Hugues JN. The hormonal flare‐up following gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone agonist administration is influenced by a progestogen pretreatment. Human Reproduction 1996;11(9):1859‐63. CENTRAL
Cédrin‐Durnerin I, Bulwa S, Hervé F, Pecqueux L, Uzan M, Hugues JN. Influence of norethisterone pretreatment on the initial flare‐up induced by a gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone agonist in a short protocol for IVF. Human Reproduction 1995;10 Abstract Book 2:116. CENTRAL

Chung 2006 {published data only}

Chung MT, Tsai YC, Chen SH, Loo TC, Tang HH, Lin LY. Influence of pituitary suppression with triphasic or monophasic oral contraceptives on the outcome of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2006;23:343‐6. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815‐006‐9056‐y]CENTRAL

Cohen 1987 {published data only}

Cohen J, Debache C, Solal P, Serkine AM, Achard B, Boujenah A, et al. Results of planned in‐vitro fertilization programming through the pre‐administration of the oestrogen‐progesterone combined pill. Human Reproduction 1987;2(1):7‐9. CENTRAL

Copperman 2003 {published data only}

Copperman AB, Mukherjee T, Sandler B, Grunfeld L, Bergh PA, Scott RT. Pre‐treatment with oral contraceptive pill improves outcome in IVF cycles of poor‐responders using the GnRH antagonist. Fertility and Sterility2003; Vol. Suppl 3, 80:S108. CENTRAL

Couzinet 1995 {published data only}

Couzinet B, Young J, Brailly S, Chanson P, Schaison G. Even after priming with ovarian steroids or pulsatile gonadotropin‐releasing hormone administration, naltrexone is unable to induce ovulation in women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhoea. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 1995;80(7):2102‐7. CENTRAL

Damario 1997 {published data only}

Damario MA, Barmat L, Liu HC, Davis OK, Rosenwaks Z. Dual suppression with oral contraceptives and gonadotrophin releasing‐hormone agonists improves in‐vitro fertilization outcome in high responder patients. Human Reproduction 1997;12(11):2359‐65. CENTRAL

Davar 2014 {published data only}

Davar R, Rahsepar M, Rahmani E. Outcome of a trial to identify predicative factors for ovarian response in a GnRH antagonist protocol with or without oral contraceptive scheduling. Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2014;12 Suppl 1(6):71. CENTRAL

Davy 2004 {published data only}

Davy C, Guibert J, Blanchet V, Nataf E, Olivennes F. The 'wash out' period do not create asynchrony of the follicle cohort when contraceptive pill is used to program GnRH antagonist IVF cycles. Human Reproduction. 2004; Vol. 19 Suppl 1:i5‐6. CENTRAL
Olivennes F, Davy C, Guibert J, Nataf E, Blanchet V. Asynchrony of the follicle cohort is not induced by the “wash out” period when contraceptive pill is used to program GnRH antagonist IVF cycles. Fertility and Sterility2004; Vol. Suppl 2, 82:S234. CENTRAL

De Ziegler 1999 {published data only}

De Ziegler D, Brioschi PA, Benchaa C, Campana A, Ditesheim PJ, Fanchin R, et al. Programming ovulation in the menstrual cycle by a simple innovative approach: back to the future of assisted reproduction. Fertility and Sterility 1999;72(1):77‐82. CENTRAL

Dickey 2001 {published data only}

Dickey RP, Sartor BM, Taylor SN, Lu PY, Rye PH, Pyrzak R. Oral contraceptives, not GnRH suppression, may be responsible for very low endogenous LH during IVF cycles. Fertility and Sterility2001; Vol. Suppl 3, 76, issue 3:S237. CENTRAL

Ditkoff 1997 {published data only}

Ditkoff EC, Prosser R, Zimmermann RC, Lindheim S, Sauer MV. The addition of norethindrone acetate to leuprolide acetate for ovarian suppression has no adverse effect on ovarian stimulation. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1997;14(2):92‐6. CENTRAL

Doody 2001 {published data only}

Doody KJ, Langley M, Marek D, Doody K. Oral contraceptive pre‐treatment for IVF cycles employing recombinant FSH and a GnRH antagonist. Fertility and Sterility2001; Vol. Suppl 1, 76, issue 3:S236. CENTRAL

Duvan 2008 {published data only}

Duvan CI, Berker B, Turhan NO, Satiroglu H. Oral contraceptive pretreatment does not improve outcome in microdose gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone agonist protocol among poor responder intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2008;25:89‐93. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815‐008‐9203‐8]CENTRAL

Engels 2011 {published data only}

Engels S, Blockeel C, Haentjens P, De Vos M, Camus M, Devroey P. How to avoid oocyte retrievals during weekend days using a GnRH antagonist protocol? A randomised controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2011;26 Suppl 1:i308 Abstract no: P‐480. CENTRAL

Fanchin 2001 {published data only}

Fanchin R, Schonauer L, Cunha Filho J, Kadoch I, Cohen Bacrie P, Frydman R. Luteal E2 administration reduces size and improves homogeneity of selectable follicles on cycle‐day 3: bases for novel controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) concepts. Fertility and Sterility2001; Vol. Suppl 1, 76, issue 3:S90. CENTRAL

Fanchin 2003b {published data only}

Fanchin R, Cunha Filho J, Schonauer L, Kadoch I, Cohen Bacri P, Frydman R. Co‐ordination of early antral follicles by luteal estradiol administration: basis for novel controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Human Reproduction. 2002; Vol. 17 Abstract Book 1:88‐9. CENTRAL
Fanchin R, Cunha‐Filho JS, Schonauer LM, Kadoch IJ, Cohen‐Bacri P, Frydman R. Coordination of early antral follicles by luteal estradiol administration provides a basis for alternative controlled ovarian hyperstimulation regimens. Fertility and Sterility 2003;79(2):316‐21. CENTRAL

Feichtinger 1991 {published data only}

Feichtinger W, Babor P, Herczeg KM, Heyda M, Hoffmann R, Plockinger B, et al. Side effects of oral contraceptives in the first treatment cycle. Weiner Medizinische Wochenschrift 1991;141(18‐19):412‐5. CENTRAL

Fisch 1996 {published data only}

Fisch B, Royburt M, Pinkas H, Avrech OM, Goldman GA, Bar J, et al. Augmentation of low ovarian response to superovulation before in vitro fertilization following priming with contraceptive pills. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 1996;32(12):1172‐6. CENTRAL

Forman 1991 {published data only}

Forman RG, Demouzon J, Feinstein MC, Testart J, Frydman R. Studies on the influence of gonadotrophin‐levels in the early follicular phase on the ovarian response to stimulation. Human Reproduction 1991;6(1):113‐7. CENTRAL

Frederick 2004 {published data only}

Frederick J, DaCosta V, Wynter S, Reid M, Frederick C, McKenzie C. Effect of the oral contraceptive pill on patients undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. West Indian Medical Journal 2004;53(1):39‐43. CENTRAL

Frydman 1986 {published data only}

Frydman R, Forman R, Rainhorn JD, Belaisch‐Allart J, Hazout A, Testart J. A new approach to follicular stimulation for in vitro fertilization: programmed oocyte retrieval. Fertility and Sterility 1986;46(4):657‐62. CENTRAL

Galera 2004 {published data only}

Galera F, Verdu V, Villafañex V, Garijo E, Rayward J, Bajo JM. Comparison of plasmatic steroid levels with and without previous oral contraceptive administration in GnRH antagonist IVF cycles. Fertility and Sterility2004; Vol. Suppl 2, 82:S32. CENTRAL

Gerli 1989 {published data only}

Gerli S, Remohi J, Partrizio P, Borrero C, Balmaceda JP, Silber SJ, et al. Programming of ovarian stimulation with norethindrone acetate in IVF/GIFT cycles. Human Reproduction 1989;4(7):746‐8. CENTRAL

Ghanem 2015 {published data only}

Ghanem M, Bediary MH, Helal AS, et al. Is adding estradiole (E2) to progesterone (P) luteal support in high responder long GnRH agonist ICSI cycles detrimental to outcome? Randomised controlled trial (RCT). Fertility & Sterility 2015;104 Suppl(3):e224. CENTRAL

Godin 2003 {published data only}

Godin PA, Gaspard O, Jouan C, Thonon F, Hincourt N, Ravet S, et al. Importance of estradiol priming in in‐vitro maturation cycles. Human Reproduction 2003;18 Suppl 1:153. CENTRAL

Gomez 2000 {published data only}

Gomez E, Ballesteros A, Landeras J, Munoz M, Martinez MC. Preparation of endometrium with oral oestradiol valerate versus transdermal oestradiol for cryopreserved embryo transfer: a prospective randomized study. Human Reproduction 2000;15:175‐6. CENTRAL

Gonen 1990 {published data only}

Gonen Y, Jacobson W, Casper RF. Gonadotropin suppression with oral contraceptives before in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 1990;53(2):282‐7. CENTRAL

Gonzalez 1995 {published data only}

Gonzalez P, Maloul S, Ciuffardi I, Frederick JL, Balmaceda JP, Asch RH. The use of progestins for programming assisted reproductive cycles and gonadotropin‐releasing hormone agonist flare‐up protocols in older patients. Fertility and Sterility 1995;63(2):249‐51. CENTRAL

Greco 2016 {published data only}

Greco E, Litwicka K, Arrivi C, Varricchio MT, Caragia A, Greco A, et al. The endometrial preparation for frozen‐thawed euploidblastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial comparing clinical results from natural modified cycle and exogenous hormone stimulation with GnRH agonist. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2016;33:873‐84. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815‐016‐0736‐y]CENTRAL

Guivarc'h‐Levêque 2009 {published data only}

Guivarc’h‐Levêque A, Arvis P, Bouchet J‐L, Broux P‐L, Moy L, Priou G, et al. Efficiency of antagonist IVF cycle programming by estrogens [Efficacité de la programmation des cycles FIV en antagonistes par les estrogènes]. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité 2010;38:18‐22. CENTRAL

Haydardedeoglu 2012 {published data only}

Haydardedeoglu B, Kilicdag EB, Parlakgummus AH, Zeyneloglu HB. IVF/ICSI outcomes of the OCP plus GnRH agonist protocol versus the OCP plus GnRH antagonist protocol in women with PCOS: a randomised trial. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2012;286:763‐9. CENTRAL

Hugues 1992 {published data only}

Hugues JN, Attalah M, Hervé F, Martin‐Pont B, Kottler ML, Santarelli J. Effects of short‐term GnRH agonist ‐ human menopausal gonadotropin stimulation in patients pre‐treated with progestogen. Human Reproduction 1992;7(8):1079‐84. CENTRAL

Jung 2000 {published data only}

Jung H, Roh HK. The effects of E2 supplementation from the early proliferative phase to the late secretory phase of the endometrium in hMG‐stimulated IVF‐ET. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2000;17(1):28‐33. CENTRAL

Karande 2004 {published data only}

Karande VC, Latash WDZ, Birkenkamp T, Cavanaugh J, Melone K, Hazlett D. Preliminary report of a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the use of NuvaRing® to Desogen® in in vitro fertilization cycles with ganirelix acetate. Fertility and Sterility2004; Vol. Suppl 2, 82:S31‐2. CENTRAL

Keltz 2007 {published data only}

Keltz MD, Gera PS, Skorupski J, Stein DE. Comparison of FSH flare with and without pretreatment with oral contraceptive pills in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 2007;88(2):350‐3. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.123]CENTRAL
Keltz MD, Sharma P, Stein DE. Comparison of FSH flare in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) with and without prior oral contraceptive suppression. Fertility and Sterility2003; Vol. 80:S107. CENTRAL

Kovacs 2001 {published data only}

Kovacs P, Barg PE, Witt BR. Hypothalamic‐pituitary suppression with oral contraceptive pills does not improve outcome in poor responder patients undergoing in vitro fertilization‐embryo transfer cycles. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2001;18(7):391‐4. CENTRAL

Kreiner 2007 {published data only}

Kreiner D, diLandro R, Moschella J. Study of IVF success with pituitary suppression prior to follistim/HMG stimulation in ganirelix cycles using oral contraceptives and estrace. Fertility & Sterility 2007;Vol 88 Suppl 1:284, abstract no. 534. CENTRAL

Leondires 1999 {published data only}

Leondires MP, Escalpes M, Segars JH, Scott RT, Miller BT. Microdose follicular phase gonadotropin‐releasing hormone agonist (GnRH‐a) compared with luteal phase GnRH‐a for ovarian stimulation at in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 1999;72(6):1018‐23. CENTRAL

Letterie 2000 {published data only}

Letterie GS. Inhibition of gonadotropin surge by a brief mid‐cycle regimen of ethinyl estradiol and norethindrone: possible role in in vitro fertilization. Gynecological Endocrinology 2000;14(1):1‐4. CENTRAL

Lewin 2002 {published data only}

Lewin A, Fatum M, Shufaro Y, Simon A, Reubinoff B, Laufer N, et al. Artificial endometrial preparation for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer using oral oestradiol and a new low‐dose vaginal progesterone preparation: Endometrin tablets. Human Reproduction2001; Vol. Suppl 1, 16:152. CENTRAL
Lewin A, Pisov G, Turgeman R, Fatum M, Shufaro Y, Simon A, et al. Simplified artificial endometrial preparation, using oral estradiol and novel vaginal progesterone tablets: a prospective randomized study. Gynecological Endocrinology 2002;16(2):131‐6. CENTRAL

Lindheim 1996 {published data only}

Lindheim SR, Barad DH, Witt B, Ditkoff E, Sauer MV. Short‐term gonadotropin suppression with oral contraceptives benefits poor responders prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 1996;13(9):745‐7. CENTRAL

Liu 2011 {published data only}

Liu KE, Alhajri M, Greenblatt E. A randomized controlled trial of NuvaRing versus combined oral contraceptive pills for pretreatment in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertility and Sterility 2011;96(3):605‐8. CENTRAL

Loutradis 2003 {published data only}

Loutradis D, Stefanidis K, Drakakis P, Kallianidis K, El Sheikh A, Milingos S, et al. Does pre‐treatment with micronized progesterone affect the ovarian response to a gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist flare‐up protocol?. Gynecological Endocrinology 2003;17(2):101‐6. CENTRAL

Martinez 2006 {published data only}

Martínez F, Boada M, Coroleu B, Clua E, Parera N, Rodríguez I, et al. A prospective trial comparing oocyte donor ovarian response and recipient pregnancy rates between suppression with gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) alone and dual suppression with a contraceptive vaginal ring and GnRH. Human Reproduction 2006;21(8):2121‐5. CENTRAL

Mashiach 1989 {published data only}

Mashiach S, Dor J, Goldenberg M, Shalev J, Blankstein J, Rudake E, et al. Protocols for induction of ovulation ‐ the concept of programmed cycles. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1988;541:37‐45. CENTRAL
Mashiach S, Dor J, Goldenberg M, Shalev J, Levran D, Rudak E, et al. Programmed oocyte retrieval: clinical and biological effects of oral contraceptives administered before in vitro fertilization. Gynecological Endocrinology 1989;3(2):107‐15. CENTRAL

Meldrum 2002 {published data only}

Meldrum D, Scott R, Levy MJ, Alper M, Noyes N. A pilot study to assess oral contraceptive (OC) pretreatment in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in ganirelix acetate cycles. Fertility and Sterility2002; Vol. Suppl 1, 78, issue 3:S176. CENTRAL

Meldrum 2008 {published data only}

Meldrum DR, Cassidenti DL, Rosen GF, Yee B, Wisot AL. Oral contraceptive pretreatment and half dose of ganirelix does not excessively suppress LH and may be an excellent choice for scheduling IUI cycles. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2008;25:417‐20. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815‐008‐9244‐z]CENTRAL

Merviel 2015 {published data only}

Merviel P, Cabry‐Goubet R, Lourdel E, Devaux A, Belhadri‐Mansouri N, Copin H, et al. Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy. Reproductive Health 2015;12:52. CENTRAL
Scheffler F, Merviel P, Lourdel E, et al. Contraceptive pill and gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) flare‐up agonist versus GnRH antagonist protocol in poor responders: lessons to a prospective study. Human Reproduction 2015;30 Suppl:i295 Abstract no: p‐410. CENTRAL

Min 2005 {published data only}

Min JK, Claman P. Oral contraceptive (OC) pre‐treatment does not influence oocyte yield in poor responders undergoing gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles for in vitro fertilization (IVF). Fertility and Sterility2005; Vol. Suppl 1, 84:S45‐6. CENTRAL

Mirkin 2003 {published data only}

Mirkin S, Stadtmauer LA, Gibbons WE, Oehninger S. Clinical and endocrine impact of pretreatment with oral contraceptive pills in poor responders undergoing IVF with a combination of microdose flare leuprolide acetate and high dose gonadotropins. Fertility and Sterility2003; Vol. Suppl 3, 80:S190‐1. CENTRAL

Mulangi 1997 {published data only}

Mulangi AS, Nelson‐White TM, Racowsky C, Gelety TJ. Follicular phase endocrine response to oral contraceptives (OCs) followed by gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) for down‐regulation prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for the purpose of IVF. Fertility and Sterility1997; Vol. Suppl 1, 68:S6. CENTRAL

Neal 1993 {published data only}

Neal GS, Sultan KM, Liu HC, Davis OK, Rosenwaks Z. A dual approach to ovarian suppression using oral contraceptive pills and leuprolide acetate in high responder patients undergoing IVF. Fertility and Sterility 1993;60(5):S111. CENTRAL

Pados 1995 {published data only}

Pados G, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis J, Lagos S, Papadimas J, Spanos E, et al. Evaluation of different ovarian stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization. Gynecological Endocrinology 1995;9:103‐12. [DOI: 10.3109/09513599509160198]CENTRAL

Palomba 2008 {published data only}

Palomba S, Falbo A, Orio F, Russo T, Tolino A, Zullo F. Pretreatment with oral contraceptives in infertile anovulatory patients with polycystic ovary syndrome who receive gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertility and Sterility 2008;89(6):1838‐42. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.035]CENTRAL

Pinkas 2008 {published data only}

Pinkas H, Sapir O, Avrech OM, Ben‐Haroush A, Ashkenzi J, Fisch B, et al. The effect of oral contraceptive pill for cycle scheduling prior to GnRH‐antagonist protocol on IVF cycle parameters and pregnancy outcome. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2008;25:29‐33. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815‐007‐9189‐7]CENTRAL

Ramsewak 2005 {published data only}

Ramsewak SS, Duffy S, Taylor J, Woodward B. The oral contraceptive pill effectively permits cycle batching for an intermittent in vitro fertilization programme in Trinidad and Tobago. West Indian Medical Journal 2005;54(2):127‐9. CENTRAL

Rashidi 2011 {published data only}

Rashidi B, Nasiri R, Rahmanpour H, Shahrokh Tehraninejad E, Deldar M. Luteal phase estradiol versus luteal phase GnRH antagonist administration: their effects on antral follicular size coordination and basal hormonal levels. Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2011;9(4):315‐8. CENTRAL

Russell 1997 {published data only}

Russell JB, Knezevich KM, Fabian KF, Dickson JA. Unstimulated immature oocyte retrieval: early versus mid follicular endometrial priming. Fertility and Sterility 1997;67(4):616‐20. CENTRAL

Sanghvi 2002 {published data only}

Sanghvi A, Noyes N, Krey LC. An oral contraceptive (OCP) microdose flare leuprolide acetate (LA) stimulation protocol is useful for poor prognosis patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Fertility and Sterility2002; Vol. Suppl 1, 78:S149. CENTRAL

Schoolcraft 1997 {published data only}

Schoolcraft W, Schlenker T, Gee M, Stevens J, Wagley L. Improved controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in poor responder in vitro fertilization patients with a microdose follicle‐stimulating hormone flare, growth hormone protocol. Fertility and Sterility 1997;67(1):93‐7. CENTRAL

Steinkampf 1991 {published data only}

Steinkampf MP, Hammond KR, Blackwell RE. Effect of estrogen/progestin administration on the ovarian response to gonadotropins: a randomized, prospective study. Fertility and Sterility 1991;55(3):642‐3. CENTRAL

Surrey 1989 {published data only}

Surrey ES, Cedars MI. The effect of gonadotropin suppression on the induction of ovulation in premature ovarian failure patients. Fertility and Sterility 1989;52(1):36‐41. CENTRAL

Surrey 1998 {published data only}

Surrey ES, Bower J, Hill DM, Ramsey J, Surrey MW. Clinical and endocrine effects of a microdose GnRH agonist flare regimen administered to poor responders who are undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility1998; Vol. 69, issue 3:419‐24. CENTRAL

Talebian 2004 {published data only}

Talebian S, Krey LC, Noyes N. Use of oral contraceptives with GnRH antagonists and recombinant gonadotropins in IVF cycles have no deleterious effect on pregnancy outcome. Fertility and Sterility2004; Vol. Suppl 2, 82:S234. CENTRAL

Talebian 2007 {published data only}

Talebian S, Krey LC, Reh A, Granguly N, Liu M, Noyes N. Oral contraceptive (OC) pre‐treatment in GnRH antagonist (ANT) cycles is a reasonable option to control the timing of IVF cycles. Fertility and Sterility2007; Vol. Suppl 1, 88:S291. CENTRAL

Tarlatzis 1993 {published data only}

Tarlatzis BC, Pazaitou K, Bili H, Bontis J, Papadimas J, Lagos S, et al. Growth hormone, oestradiol, progesterone and testosterone concentrations in follicular fluid after ovarian stimulation with various regimes for assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction 1993;8(10):1612‐6. CENTRAL

Tartagni 2007 {published data only}

Tartagni M, Cicinelli E, De Pergola G, De Salvia MA, Lavopa C, Loverro G. Effects of pretreatment with estrogens on ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins in women with premature ovarian failure: a randomized, placebo‐controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 2007;87(4):858‐61. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.08.086]CENTRAL

Tehraninejad 2010 {published data only}

Tehraninejad ES, Nasiri R, Rashidi B, Haghollahi F, Ataie M. Comparison of GnRH antagonist with long GnRH agonist protocol after OCP pretreatment in PCOs patients. Archives of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2010;282(3):319‐25. CENTRAL

Wang 2008 {published data only}

Wang B, Sun HX, Hu YL, Chen H, Zhang NY. Application of GnRH‐antagonist to IVF‐ET for patients with poor ovarian response. National Journal of Andrology [Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue] 2008;14(5):423‐6. CENTRAL

Wang 2016 {published data only}

Wang Y, Chen Q, Wang N, Chen H, Lyu Q, Kuang Y. Controlled ovarian stimulation using medroxyprogesterone acetate and hMG in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome treated for IVF a double‐blind randomized crossover clinical trial. Medicine 2016;95(9):1‐8. CENTRAL

Wei 2016 {published data only}

Wei D, Shi Y, Li J, Wang Z, Zhang L, Sun Y, et al. Effect of pretreatment with oral contraceptives and progestins on IVF outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Human Reproduction 2016;32(2):1‐8. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew325]CENTRAL

Weisman 1989 {published data only}

Weisman Z, Dirnfeld M, Lissak A, Sorokin Y, Abramovici H. Oral contraceptive pills and follicular fluid hormones in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertility and Sterility 1989;52(3):451‐3. CENTRAL

Yokota 2006 {published data only}

Yokota Y, Yokota M, Yokota H, Makita M, Sato S, Araki Y. A novel procedure for improving pregnancy rates in frequent repeated IVF failure: estrogen rebound combined with GnRH agonist flare. Human Reproduction 2006;21 Suppl 1:i130‐1. CENTRAL

Yoshida 2005 {published data only}

Yoshida A, Kakinuma M, Matsuba T, Seida K, Suzuki H, Tanaka M. Effectiveness of using estradiol‐GnRH antagonist protocol with unsuccessful oral contraceptive pill‐GnRH antagonist protocol cases (full term pregnancies had not resulted) in in‐vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Fertility and Sterility2005; Vol. Suppl 1, 84:S45. CENTRAL

Youssef 2017 {published data only}

Youssef M, van Wely M, Al‐Inany H, Madani T, Jahangiri N, Khodabakhshi S, et al. A mild ovarian stimulation in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF: a multicenter randomized non‐inferiority trial. Human Reproduction 2017;32(1):112‐8. CENTRAL
Youssef M, van Wely M, Al‐Inany H, Madani T, Jahangiri N, Khodabakhshi S, et al. Mild versus standard ovarian stimulation in poor responder women undergoing IVF and ICSI (prima) ‐ multicenter randomised controlled study. Human Reproduction 2014;29:i50‐1. CENTRAL

Zhao 2008 {published data only}

Zhao JZ, Lin XH, Huang XF, Lin JJ, Lin WQ, Ye BL. Effect of desogestrel and ethinyl estradiol pretreatment in superovulation cycles with short protocol. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology [Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi] 2008;43(2):102‐5. CENTRAL

Al‐Inany 2016

Al‐Inany HG, Youssef MA, Ayeleke RO, Brown J, Lam WS, Broekmans FJ. Gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001750.pub4]

Arowojolu 2007

Arowojolu AO, Gallo MF, Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Garner SE. Combined oral contraceptive pills for treatment of acne. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004425.pub3]

Awadalla 1987

Awadalla SG, Friedman CI, Chin NW, Dodds W, Park JM, Kim MH. Follicular stimulation for in vitro fertilization using pituitary suppression and human menopausal gonadotropins. Fertility and Sterility 1987;48(5):811‐5.

Barmat 2005

Barmat LI, Chantilis SJ, Hurst BS, Dickey RP. A randomized prospective trial comparing gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist/ recombinant follicle‐stimulating hormone (rFSH) versus GnRH‐agonist/ rFSH in women pretreated with oral contraceptives before in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 2005;83(2):321‐30. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.076]

Biljan 1998a

Biljan MM, Mahutte NG, Dean N, Hemmings R, Bissonnette F, Tan SL. Effects of pretreatment with an oral contraceptive on the time required to achieve pituitary suppression with gonadotropin‐releasing hormone analogues and on subsequent implantation and pregnancy rates. Fertility and Sterility 1998;70(6):1063‐9.

Cohen 1979

Cohen BL, Katz M. Pituitary and ovarian function in women receiving hormonal contraception. Contraception 1979;20(5):475‐87.

De Ziegler 1998

De Ziegler D, Jaaskelainen AS, Brioschi PA, Fanchin R, Bulletti C. Synchronization of endogenous and exogenous FSH stimuli in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). Human Reproduction 1998;13(3):561‐4.

Dodson 1989

Dodson WC. Role of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists in ovulation induction. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1989;34(1):76‐9.

EndNote [Computer program]

Thomson Reuters. EndNote. Version X1. New York: Thomson Reuters, 2008.

Erkkola 2007

Erkkola R. Recent advances in hormonal contraception. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2007;19:547‐53.

ESHRE 2016

European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. 32nd annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Helsinki, Finland 2016. Human Reproduction 2016;31 Suppl 1:Abstract book.

Gaspard 1984

Gaspard UJ, Dubois M, Gillain D, Franchimont P, Duvivier J. Ovarian function is effectively inhibited by a low‐dose triphasic oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel. Contraception 1984;29(4):305‐18.

GRADEpro GDT 2014 [Computer program]

GRADE Working Group, McMaster University. GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed prior to 28 October 2016. Hamilton (ON): GRADE Working Group, McMaster University, 2014.

Griesinger 2008

Griesinger G, Venetis CA, Marx T, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis BC, Kolibianakis EM. Oral contraceptive pill pretreatment in ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonists for IVF: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Fertility and Sterility 2008;90(4):1055‐63. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.07.1354]

Griffin 2002

Griffin PD, Rowe PJ, Vayena E, editor(s). Medical, ethical and social aspects of assisted reproduction. Current practices and controversies in assisted reproduction: report of a WHO meeting. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization2002. [ISBN 92 4 159030 0]

Harwood 2007

Harwood K, Vuguin P, DiMartino‐Nardi J. Current approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of polycystic ovarian syndrome in youth. Hormone Research 2007;68(5):209‐17. [DOI: 10.1159/000101538]

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Huirne 2006b

Huirne JA, Hugues JN, Pirard C, Fischl F, Sage JC, Pouly JL, et al. Cetrorelix in an oral contraceptive‐pretreated stimulation cycle compared with buserelin in IVF/ICSI patients treated with r‐hFSH: a randomized, multicentre, phase IIIb study. Human Reproduction 2006;21(6):1408‐15. [10.1093/humrep/del030]

Irvine 1999

Irvine GA, Cameron IT. Medical management of dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Best Practice and Research in Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999;13(2):189‐202.

Le Nestour 1993

Le Nestour E, Marraoui J, Lahlou N, Roger M, De Ziegler D, Bouchard P. Role of estradiol in the rise in follicle‐stimulating hormone levels during the luteal‐follicular transition. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 1993;77(2):439‐42.

MDSG Module 2008

Farquhar C, Clarke J, Lethaby A, Thomas J, Proctor M, Barlow D, et al. Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group, About The Cochrane Collaboration (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs)). Available at www.thecochranelibrary.com2008.

Moher 2009

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA Statement. BMJ 2009;339:2535.

Moudgal 1985

Moudgal RN, Jagannadha Rao A, Murthy GSRC, Neelakanta R, Banavar SR, Kotagi SG, et al. Effect of intranasal administration of norethisterone and progesterone on pituitary and gonadal function in adult male and female bonnet monkeys (Macaca radiata). Fertility and Sterility 1985;44(1):120‐4.

Pandian 2005

Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Vale L, Templeton A. In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003357.pub2]

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

SIGN

Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Search filters. www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/filters.html#random (accessed 18 November 2008).

Tarlatzis 2006

Tarlatzis BC, Fauser BC, Kolibianakis EM, Diedrich K, Rombauts L, Devroey P. GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF. Human Reproduction Update 2006;12(4):333‐40. [DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dml001]

Van Wely 2003

Van Wely M, Westergaard LG, Bossuyt PM, Van der Veen F. Human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant follicle stimulation hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive cycles. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003973]

References to other published versions of this review

Smulders 2006

Smulders B, van Oirschot SM, Farquhar C, Rombauts L, Kremer JAM. Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or estrogen pre‐treatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006109]

Smulders 2010

Smulders B, van Oirschot SM, Farquhar C, Rombauts L, Kremer JAM. Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or estrogen pre‐treatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006109.pub2]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Aston 1995

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 152 (77 in intervention group; 75 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: 8 (1 in intervention group due to endometrioma; 7 in control group: 5 due to endometrioma or cysts and 2 chose not to proceed).

Number of women analyzed: 144.

Participants

Country of authors: UK.

Inclusion criteria: women planning to have an IVF cycle on the Southampton (UK) IVF programme.

Exclusion criteria: endometrioma or ovarian cyst seen on vaginal ultrasound scan on day 19 of the menstrual cycle (after recruitment).

Mean age ± SD: intervention group: 33.8 ± 4.1 years; control group: 33.5 ± 3.5 years.

Interventions

Intervention: medroxyprogesterone acetate (10 mg/day) on cycle days 19‐25 + GnRH agonist (buserelin acetate, nasal administration 200 μg 3 times daily) from cycle day 21 + hMG 4 ampoules/day (75 IU FSH and 75 IU LH per ampoule) from day 4 of ensuing menses.

Control: placebo on cycle days 19‐25 + GnRH agonist (buserelin acetate, 200 μg nasal administration, 3 times daily) from cycle day 21 + hMG 4 ampoules/day (75 IU FSH and 75 IU LH per ampoule) from day 4 of ensuing menses.

Both hMG and GnRH agonist continued until hCG injection (10,000 IU, IM), administered when leading 3 follicles reached diameter of ≥ 18 mm and serum oestradiol > 300 pmol/L for every follicle > 14 mm in diameter.

Outcomes

  • Cyst development: intraovarian sonolucent structure with a mean diameter > 14 mm, measured after 12 days of pituitary suppression.

  • Clinical pregnancy rates: not defined.

Notes

Power calculation performed: yes.

ITT analysis performed: no.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "The hospital pharmacy randomized to contain placebo or progestogen."
Method of randomization not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "The hospital pharmacy provided a series of consecutively numbered bottles."

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double blind.
Women in control group received a placebo.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Proportions of withdrawals not balanced between the 2 treatment groups (1 in intervention group; 5 in control group) and data were not analyzed on ITT basis.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

All planned outcomes not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Quote: "No difference was seen between the study group and control group in the indication of IVF and age."

Biljan 1998b

Methods

Academic centre, parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 83 women undergoing 102 cycles (51 cycles in each group; number of women per group not reported).

Number of withdrawals: not reported.

Number of women analyzed: only number of cycles analyzed reported (102 cycles).

Participants

Country of authors: Canada.

Inclusion criteria: women who were receiving a long protocol of pituitary suppression in the early follicular phase as a part of IVF‐ET treatment.

Exclusion criteria: not reported.

Median age (range): intervention group: 35.2 years (32.5‐39.1); control group: 33.7 years (31.6‐38.3).

Interventions

Intervention: COCP on cycle days 1‐14 + GnRH agonist (buserelin acetate, long protocol 500 μg/day) started on cycle day 14 + hMG (75 IU FSH and 75 IU LH) or pure FSH (75 IU) started after achievement of pituitary suppression.

Control: GnRH agonist (buserelin acetate, long protocol 500 μg/day) started on cycle day 2 + hMG (75 IU FSH and 75 IU LH) or pure FSH (75 IU) started after achievement of pituitary suppression.

If no pituitary suppression (serum oestradiol < 40 pg/mL) achieved after 14 days of GnRH agonist administration, dosage of buserelin acetate increased to 500 μg twice daily + administration of an IM injection of progesterone 100 mg.

Both hMG/FSH and GnRH agonist continued until hCG injection, administered when ≥ 3 follicles reach a mean diameter of ≥ 18 mm.

Outcomes

  • Clinical pregnancy rate per cycle started: presence of ≥ 1 foetal heart beats confirmed with ultrasound performed at least 4 weeks after embryo transfer.

  • Number of women with a cyst: intraovarian sonolucent structure with a mean diameter of > 14 mm, measured after 7 days of pituitary suppression.

  • Number of days of GnRHa treatment.

  • Number of days of gonadotrophin treatment.

  • Total quantity of gonadotrophin administered: measured in ampoules.

  • Number of follicles.

  • Number of oocytes collected/fertilised.

  • Number of embryos replaced.

  • Implantation rate.

Notes

Power calculation performed: yes.

ITT analysis performed: no.

No per‐woman data reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "They were randomized in two groups by drawing sealed envelopes that contained randomly generated numbers."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Sealed envelopes.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Numbers and reasons for withdrawals not reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

All planned outcomes not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

No significant difference in baseline characteristics between groups with regard to age, cause of infertility, number of previous attempts, and oestradiol, FSH or LH level.

Blockeel 2012

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 86 (44 in intervention group; 42 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: 14 (9 in intervention group due to cyst development, protocol violation, insufficient ovarian response, did not undergo treatment, did not receive embryo transfer; 5 in control group due to insufficient ovarian response, did not receive embryo transfer).

Number of women analyzed (for pregnancy outcome): 72 (35 in intervention group; 37 in control group).

Participants

Country: Belgium.

Inclusion criteria: women aged ≤ 36 years, BMI 18‐29 kg/m2, underwent a first or second treatment cycle of IVF with ICSI, serum FSH on day 3 of the menstrual cycle < 12 IU/L, normal ultrasound scan regular ovulatory menstrual cycle of 21 to 35 days.

Exclusion criteria: oocyte donors, women with endometriosis ≥ grade 3, endocrine or metabolic abnormalities, PCOS or previous history of poor ovarian response (defined as development of < 4 follicles in previous IVF or ICSI cycle).

Mean age ± SD: intervention group: 29.2 ± 3.0 years; control group: 30.2 ± 3.0 years.

Setting: assisted reproduction programme in Belgium.

Interventions

Intervention: oestradiol valerate (2 × 2 mg/day) during 6‐10 consecutive days (from cycle day 25 onwards) prior to start of rFSH stimulation so that the first day of stimulation occurred between Friday and Sunday.

Control: no pretreatment; standard GnRH antagonist protocol.

Both groups received rFSH (150 IU) and on day 6 of stimulation GnRH antagonist protocol (ganirelix 0.25 mg/day).

Outcomes

Primary:

  • Number of women undergoing oocyte retrieval during weekend days.

Secondary:

  • Mean number of COCP in each treatment group.

  • Number of oocytes.

  • Duration of stimulation.

  • Total cumulative dose of rFSH used.

  • Pregnancy rate.

  • Basal hormone serum values.

Notes

Power calculation: not reported.

ITT analysis: not reported.

Objective of the study was to assess the ability of oestradiol to control the oocyte retrieval of GnRH antagonist cycles prior to COS.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Computer‐generated randomization list.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Consecutive sealed opaque envelopes.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Reasons for, and proportions of, withdrawals balanced between the 2 treatment groups and data were analyzed on the basis of ITT.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

All prespecified outcomes reported,

Other bias

Low risk

Groups comparable at baseline,

Cédrin‐Durnerin 2007

Methods

Multicentre (6 IVF centres), parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 93 (21 in COCP group; 23 in progestogen group; 25 in oestrogen group; 24 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: 3 in oestrogen group (1 did not start any treatment, 1 due to an ovarian cyst and 1 due to major protocol violation).

Number of women analyzed: 90.

Duration of study: 10 months of recruitment.

Participants

Country of authors: France.

Inclusion criteria: regular normo‐ovulatory cycles (28‐35 days), aged < 38 years, BMI 18‐30.

Exclusion criteria: high levels of baseline serum FSH or oestradiol, < 5 follicles at the antral follicular count performed on day 3 of a spontaneous cycle, history of high (> 20 oocytes) or low (< 5 oocytes) ovarian response in a previous IVF attempt.

Mean age ± SD: COCP group: 30.8 ± 4.6 years; progestogen group: 32.9 ± 2.5 years; oestrogen group: 31.8 ± 3.2 years; control group: 31.2 ± 4.3 years.

Interventions

COCP group: COCP (ethinyl oestradiol 30 μg + desogestrel 150 μg daily), started cycle day 2 or 3 for 15‐21 days (stopped on a Sunday) + rFSH (recombinant follitropin beta 150‐300 IU/day), started post‐treatment day 5 + GnRH antagonist (ganirelix acetate 0.25 mg/day), started when leading follicle reached 14 mm in diameter.

Progestogen group: norethisterone 10 mg/day, started cycle day 15 for 10‐15 days (stopped on a Sunday) + rFSH (recombinant follitropin beta 150‐300 IU/day), started post‐treatment day 5 + GnRH antagonist (ganirelix acetate 0.25 mg/day), started when leading follicle reached 14 mm in diameter.

Oestrogen group: micronised 17‐βE2 (2 mg twice daily), 10‐15 days, started 10 days before the presumed menses (stopped on a Sunday) + rFSH (recombinant follitropin beta 150‐300 IU/day), started post‐treatment day 5 + GnRH antagonist (ganirelix acetate 0.25 mg/day), started when leading follicle reached 14 mm in diameter.

Control group: rFSH (recombinant follitropin beta 150‐300 IU/day), started day 3 after spontaneous menses + GnRH antagonist (ganirelix acetate 0.25 mg/day), started when leading follicle reached 14 mm in diameter.

rFSH dose according to age, BMI and previous responses to stimulation; after 5 days of treatment dose adjustment according to ovarian response.

Both rFSH and GnRH antagonist were continued until hCG injection (10,000 IU), administered when ≥ 3 mature (of ≥ 17 mm diameter) follicles were obtained.

Outcomes

  • Number of live births.

  • Number of positive pregnancy tests.

  • Clinical pregnancy rate: not defined.

  • Ongoing pregnancy rate: pregnancy developing beyond 12 weeks.

  • Multiple pregnancy rate: not defined.

  • Hormonal profiles during the 5‐day washout period.

  • Follicular growth.

  • Antagonist duration.

  • Pretreatment duration.

  • Number of retrievals.

  • FSH dose.

  • Transferred embryos.

Notes

Power calculation performed: no.

ITT analysis performed: no (not for oestrogen group).

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Random allocation sequence was generated from a table of random numbers... Randomization was stratified by centre..."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Random allocation sequence was concealed to each physician who enrolled and randomised patients."

Sealed envelopes.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Quote: "This study was not blind."

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Reasons for withdrawals and proportions of withdrawals not clearly stated.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Some planned outcomes not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

No significant baseline imbalance with regard to age and BMI.

Cédrin‐Durnerin 2012

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 472 (238 in intervention group; 234 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: 19 (5 in intervention group due to spontaneous pregnancy, discontinuation and no periods; 14 in control group due to spontaneous pregnancy, discontinuation, ovarian cyst and protocol change).

Number of women analyzed: 453 (233 in intervention group; 220 in control group).

Participants

Country France.

Inclusion criteria: regular normo‐ovulatory cycles (28‐35 days), aged < 38 years, BMI 18‐30 kg/m2 and first or second IVF/ICSI attempt.

Exclusion criteria: high basal levels of serum FSH (> 12 IU/L) or oestradiol (> 80 pg/mL), < 5 follicles at the antral follicular count performed on day 3 of a spontaneous cycle or history of high (> 20 oocytes) or low (< 5 oocytes) ovarian response in earlier IVF attempt.

Mean age ± SD: intervention group: 31.1 ± 3.6 years; control group: 31.2 ± 3.7 years.

Setting: 10 private or university‐based centres in France.

Interventions

Intervention: oral 17 β‐oestradiol (4 mg; 2 mg x 2/day) started 7 days before the presumed onset of menses and administered up to the next Thursday after the occurrence of menstrual bleeding.

Control: no pretreatment.

Ovarian stimulation started on Friday in intervention group and on cycle day 2 after spontaneous menses in control group. Followed by GnRH antagonists on day 6, then hCG.

Outcomes

Primary:

  • Number of retrieved oocytes.

Secondary:

  • Consumption of gonadotropins.

  • Duration of treatment.

  • Implantation and pregnancy rates.

Notes

Power calculation for sample size (225 women per group).

ITT analysis not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Table of random numbers.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Authors stated allocation concealed by sealed envelopes.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Reasons for withdrawals and proportions of withdrawals not balanced between groups and data not analyzed on the basis of ITT.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

All prespecified outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Groups balanced at baseline with respect to demographic characteristics.

Daly 2002

Methods

Cross‐over study.

Number of women randomized: 25 (13 intervention group; 12 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: not reported.

Number of women analyzed: unclear.

Participants

Country of authors: USA.

Inclusion criteria: women, aged < 41 years, who were anticipated to have limited ovarian reserve based on transvaginal ultrasound showing limited follicles on cycle day 2‐3 or hormonal values (inhibin B, FSH, oestradiol).
Exclusion criteria: not reported.

Mean age: not reported.

Poor response: yes ("limited ovarian reserve").

Interventions

Intervention: COCP + GnRH agonist (leuprolide acetate, microdose) + hMG (300 IU FSH + 75 IU LH). Timing of administration of COCP, hMG and GnRH agonist not reported.

Control: oestradiol (2 mg) in the luteal phase of the preparation cycle + FSH (300 IU), started cycle day 2 + GnRH antagonist (ganirelix acetate) started in late follicular phase + hMG (375 IU FSH + 150 IU LH), timing not reported.

Outcomes

  • Ongoing pregnancy: a viable pregnancy, method of assessment not reported.

  • Clinical pregnancy: not defined.

  • Number of mature oocytes.

  • Number of good embryos.

  • Implantation rate.

  • Cancellation rate.

Notes

Power calculation performed: unclear.

ITT analysis performed: unclear.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"Randomized," method not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Only abstract available. Numbers and reasons for withdrawals not reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Data on all planned outcomes reported. Pre‐cross‐over data on primary outcome reported, but on some secondary outcomes (implantation rate, mature oocytes, good embryos) only post‐cross‐over data reported.

Other bias

Unclear risk

No data on baseline characteristics reported.

Ditkoff 1996

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 105 (47 in intervention group; 58 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: 0.

Number of women analyzed: 105.

Length of follow‐up: until end of treatment cycle.

Participants

Country: USA.

Inclusion criteria: day 3 FSH values < 15 mIU/mL.

Exclusion criteria: not reported.

Mean age ± SD: intervention: 36.7 ± 4.8 years; control: 35.8 ± 4.57 years.

Interventions

Intervention: norethindrone acetate (10 mg/day PO) on cycle days 1‐8 + GnRH agonist (leuprolide acetate, 1 mg/day, SC), started cycle day 1 + hMG (225 IU/day IM), started when serum oestradiol level was < 30 pg/mL.
2) GnRH agonist (leuprolide acetate 1 mg/day, SC), started cycle day 1 + hMG (225 IU/day, IM), started when serum oestradiol level was < 30 pg/mL.

Both hMG and GnRH agonist are continued until hCG injection (10,000 IU, IM), administered when the leading follicles reached a diameter of ≥ 18 mm.

Outcomes

  • Number of deliveries/ongoing pregnancies; positive foetal heart activity on ultrasound.

  • Number of clinical pregnancies; evidence of a clinical gestational sac.

  • Days until suppression.

  • Number of cysts cycles; intraovarian sonolucent structure with a mean diameter > 14 mm, measured after 8 days of pituitary suppression.

  • Number of oocytes retrieved.

  • Days of ovarian stimulation.

  • Number of ampoules of hMG.

Notes

Power calculation performed: no.

ITT analysis performed: no

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Patients were randomly assigned by tossing a coin to one of two groups."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Centralised randomization process.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

No withdrawals.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

All planned outcomes not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Quote: "The various infertility diagnoses were distributed equally between the control and study groups."

Engmann 1999

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women recruited: 123.

Number of women excluded: 6 (2 due to ovarian cysts ≥ 15 mm, 2 due to raised early follicular phase serum FSH, 2 did not undergo IVF).

Number of women randomized: 117 (63 in intervention group; 54 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: 1 (in intervention group, due to violation of the study protocol).

Number of women analyzed: 116.

Duration of study: 1 year of recruitment.

Source of funding: Schering Health Care Limited, West Sussex, UK, supplied the norethindrone.

Participants

Country of authors: UK and Canada.

Inclusion criteria: aged 18‐44 years at time of screening, duration of infertility ≥ 1 year, early follicular phase serum FSH ≤ 11.0 IU/L, good physical and mental health, suitability for the long‐term buserelin protocol for desensitisation.

Exclusion criteria: endometrioma of the ovary, ovarian cysts (≥ 15 mm) in the early follicular phase, known contraindications to the use of progestogen, GnRH agonists or hMG.

Mean age ± SD: intervention group: 35.3 ± 4.3 years; control group: 33.8 ± 5.5 years.

Interventions

Intervention: norethindrone (10 mg on cycle day 1 and 5 mg twice daily on cycle day 2‐5) + GnRH agonist (buserelin acetate 500 μg/day, SC, long protocol), started on cycle day 2 (dose adjustment after pituitary suppression to 200 μg/day) + hMG (Normegon, 75 IU FSH 2‐5 ampoules/day) or rFSH, started when serum oestradiol ≤ 150 pmol/L.

Control: GnRH agonist (buserelin acetate 500 μg/day, SC, long protocol) started on cycle day 2 (dose adjustment after pituitary suppression to 200 μg/day) + hMG (Normegon, 75 IU FSH 2‐5 ampoules/day) or rFSH, started when serum oestradiol ≤ 150 pmol/L.

Pituitary suppression achieved when there was an absence of follicular activity and endometrial thickness < 5 mm.

hMG or rFSH dose according to woman's age, previous response, basal serum FSH levels and PCOS.

Both hMG/rFSH and GnRH agonist continued until hCG injection (10,000 IU, IM), administered when 2 or 3 leading follicles ≥ 18 mm in diameter.

Outcomes

  • Incidence of functional ovarian cysts (≥ 10 mm, measured after 1 week of GnRH agonist).

  • Number of days required to achieve pituitary desensitisation.

  • Number of hospital visits before ovarian stimulation.

  • Number of preovulatory follicles and mature oocytes.

  • Fertilisation rate.

  • Number of good‐quality embryos produced and transferred.

  • Implantation rate.

  • Clinical pregnancy rate: positive pregnancy test with evidence of a gestational sac.

  • Amount of gonadotrophins administered: measured in ampoules.

  • Pregnancy loss.

Notes

Power calculation performed: yes.

ITT analysis performed: no.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a ratio of 1:1 by means of computer‐generated random numbers. To ensure similar distributions of age in the two groups, separate randomization schedules were drawn up for women < 40 years old and women ≥ 40 years old by use of stratified randomised blocks."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Selection into the groups (and of administration of the appropriate treatment protocol) was performed by the clinic nurses by using a series of consecutively numbered sealed envelopes (one for each age group)."

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Quote: "Although the patient could guess her treatment status, treatment allocation was not recorded in the clinical notes, and all clinicians were blinded to the status of study participants until the trial was over."

However, no information on outcome assessors.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Proportions of withdrawals fairly balanced between the 2 groups.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Data on all planned outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

No significant baseline imbalance between groups with regard to age, duration of infertility, previous attempts, baseline serum FSH, polycystic ovaries and cause of infertility.

Fanchin 2003

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 100 (number of women per group not reported).

Number of withdrawals: 10 (4 due to personal reasons and 6 due to major protocol violation).

Number of women analyzed: 90 (47 in intervention group; 43 in control group).

Duration of study: 1 IVF‐ET cycle, from day 20 of the previous cycle to day of hCG administration (information obtained from contact person).

Participants

Country of authors: France.

Inclusion criteria: aged ≤ 38 years; regular, ovulatory menstrual cycles every 25‐35 days; both ovaries present; no current or past diseases affecting ovaries or gonadotrophin or sex steroid secretion, clearance or excretion; BMI 18‐27 kg/m2; no hormone therapy during the past 6 weeks; adequate visualisation of both ovaries in transvaginal ultrasound scans.

Exclusion criteria: not reported.

Median age (range): intervention group: 33 (26‐38) years; control group: 33 (25‐38) years.

Interventions

Intervention: micronised 17β‐E2 (4 mg/day, PO), started cycle day 20 until day 2 of the next cycle + rFSH (225 IU/day, SC) on cycle days 3‐7 + GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix acetate 3 mg single dose, SC) when ≥ 1 follicle > 13 mm in diameter.

Control: rFSH (225 IU/day SC) on cycle days 3‐7 + GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix acetate 3 mg single dose, SC) when ≥ 1 follicle > 13 mm in diameter.

rFSH dose adjustments according to follicle growth determined by serum oestradiol levels and ultrasound monitoring.

Outcomes

  • Days of GnRH antagonist administration.

  • Day of hCG administration.

  • Dose of gonadotrophins.

  • Number of mature follicles.

  • Number of embryos transferred.

  • Clinical pregnancy rates per cycle (cycles equivalent to number of participants); presence of a gestational sac with foetal heart activity at 6 weeks on ultrasound scan.

Notes

Power calculation performed: yes.

ITT analysis performed: no

Our data analysis in this review includes 90 women with full follow‐up. We did not include all randomized women because it is unclear how many women were randomized to each group before dropouts.

The study publication reports very low measures of variability which can be to be assumed SEs and which we have converted to SDs

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Women randomly received...", "...according to a computer‐generated, blocked randomization list."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Treatment allocation was decided by an independent person."

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No blinding, information obtained from contact person.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Unclear how many withdrew in each group and data not analyzed on the basis of ITT.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

All planned outcomes not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

No difference in baseline characteristics with regard to age, indication for IVF‐ET, duration of infertility, rank of the current IVF‐ET attempt, menstrual cycle length, day 3 serum FSH and oestradiol.

Franco Jr 2003

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women recruited: 22.

Number of women randomized: 22 (16 in intervention group; 6 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: 1 (both in intervention group, due to spontaneous pregnancies).

Number of women analyzed: 20.

Participants

Country of authors: Brazil.

Inclusion criteria: women without specific ovulatory dysfunction, aged ≤ 37 years, who would be submitted to ovarian stimulation.

Exclusion criteria: not reported.

Mean age ± SD: intervention group: 32.2 ± 2.1 years; control group: 31.8 ± 1.9 years.

Interventions

Intervention: oestradiol valerate (4 mg/day) for 14 days, started cycle day 21 + rFSH (150‐300 IU) (fixed dose for 5 days), started post‐treatment day 1 + GnRH antagonist (ganirelix acetate 0.25 mg/day), started when follicular diameter ≥ 15 mm.

Control: GnRH agonist (nafarelin acetate 200 μg twice daily, nasal), started cycle day 21 + rFSH (150‐300 IU) (fixed dose for 5 days), started stimulation day 14.

Both rFSH and GnRH analogues continued until hCG injection (5000‐10,000 IU), administered when ≥ 2 follicles were ≥ 17 mm in diameter.

Outcomes

  • Clinical pregnancy rate: ≥ 1 foetal heart beats confirmed with ultrasound, performed at least 4 weeks after embryo transfer.

  • Ovarian cyst: intraovarian sonolucent structure with mean diameter of > 14 mm, time of measurement not reported.

  • OHSS: not defined.

  • Values of LH, oestradiol, progesterone.

  • Dose of FSH.

  • Number of collected oocytes.

  • Number of oocytes in metaphase II.

  • Fertilisation rate.

  • Number of transferred embryos.

  • Embryo implantation rate.

  • Gestation rate per embryo transfer.

Notes

Power calculation performed: no.

ITT analysis performed: no

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Randomisation by drawing lots after constructing a table of distribution.
2:1 randomization (intervention:control).

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

After drawing lots, clinicians and participants could see in the table to which treatment they were assigned to.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to make a conclusive judgement.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

There was imbalance in the proportions of withdrawals between the 2 groups and data analyzed on the basis of ITT.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

All planned outcomes not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

No significant difference in baseline characteristics with regard to age.

Garcia‐Velasco 2011

Methods

2‐arm parallel RCT.

Number of women randomized: 228 (115 in intervention; 113 in control).

Withdrawals: not reported.

Number of women analyzed: not reported.

Participants

Country: Spain.

Inclusion criteria: regular cycle women under 39 years, < 3 previous IVF attempts.

Exclusion criteria: previous low response to COH, ovarian surgery or PCOS.

Mean age: intervention group: 34.1 years; control group: 33.7 years.

Setting: not reported.

Interventions

Intervention: COCP (ethinyl oestradiol 30 μg + desogestrel 150 μg) for 12‐16 days and COH started on day 5 post COCP using GnRH antagonist.

Control: GnRH agonist long protocol from days 20‐22 of the previous cycle.

Outcomes

  • Duration of stimulation.

  • FSH used.

  • Number of oocyte retrieved.

  • Miscarriage rate.

  • Multiple pregnancy rate.

  • Ongoing pregnancy.

Notes

Duration of stimulation, FSH used and number of oocyte retrieved were continuous variables.

Power calculation was not reported.

ITT analysis: not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Computer‐generated list with consecutive inclusion.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Opaque consecutively numbered envelopes with assignment under nurse control.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Proportions of withdrawals and reasons for withdrawals not reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

All prespecified outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Groups comparable at baseline with regard to demographic characteristics.

Hauzman 2013

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 100 (50 in each group).

Number of withdrawals: 16 (7 in intervention group; 9 in control group).

Number of women analyzed: 100 (ITT analysis).

Participants

Country: Spain.

Inclusion criteria: aged 18‐38 years, regular normo‐ovulatory menstrual cycles (26‐35 days), BMI < 30 kg/m2, normal cycle day 3 basal serum hormone levels (FSH < 10 IU/L and oestradiol < 60 pg/mL) and < 3 previous IVF/ICSI attempts.

Exclusion criteria: previous ovarian surgery, low ovarian response (cancellation of cycle due to poor follicular development after ≥ 7 days of gonadotropin stimulation or < 5 oocytes retrieved) in previous IVF/ICSI cycle and PCOS.

Mean age ± SD: intervention group: 33.9 ± 3.4 years; control group: 34.5 ± 3.1 years.

Setting: single hospital clinic in Madrid, Spain.

Interventions

Intervention: COCP: (ethinyl oestradiol 30 μg + levonorgestrel 150 μg) on day 1 or 2 of cycle prior to IVF/ICSI and continued for 12‐16 days, with stimulation starting 5 days after stopping pretreatment.

Control: (oestradiol valerate 4 mg/day (2 mg × 2)) from day 20 of menstrual cycle for 5‐12 days until the day before starting stimulation.

In both groups, GnRH antagonist (ganirelix 0.25 mg/day) started when the leading follicle reached 13 mm in diameter and ovarian triggering performed with rhCG (250 μg) (when 2 leading follicles reached ≥ 17 mm mean diameter).

Outcomes

Primary:

  • Ongoing pregnancy rate.

Secondary:

  • Implantation rate.

  • Clinical pregnancy rate.

  • Miscarriage rate.

  • Live birth rate.

Notes

Power calculation for sample size: yes but not achieved because this was a single‐centre study.

ITT analysis: yes.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Computer‐generated random number list.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Consecutively numbered opaque envelopes.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Although personnel involved in data collection and data analysis blinded it was not reported whether other personnel and participants were blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Reasons for withdrawals and proportions of withdrawals were fairly balanced between groups and data were analyzed on the basis of ITT.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

All prespecified outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Groups balanced at baseline with respect to demographic characteristics.

Hugues 1994

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 45 (20 in intervention group; 25 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: not reported.

Number of women analyzed: not reported.

Participants

Country of authors: France.

Inclusion criteria: not reported.

Exclusion criteria: not reported.

Mean age: not reported.

Interventions

Intervention: norethisterone (10 mg/day) for 10‐15 days + GnRH agonist (DTRP6‐LHRH 100 μg/day).

Control: GnRH agonist (DTRP6‐LHRH 100 μg/day).

Timing of treatments not reported.

Outcomes

  • Oestradiol and progestogen levels.

Notes

Power calculation performed: unclear.

ITT analysis performed: unclear.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"Randomised," method not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Numbers and reasons of withdrawals not reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

All planned outcomes not reported. No data on pregnancy rates.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Baseline demographic characteristics not reported.

Huirne 2006a

Methods

Academic, multicentre, parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 64 (32 in each group).

Number of withdrawals: 1 (in intervention group, due to unwillingness to take OCP).

Number of women analyzed: 63.

Source of funding: Serono Geneva supplied the antide.

Participants

Country: the Netherlands and Belgium.

Inclusion criteria: regular IVF or ICSI indication (i.e. idiopathic infertility after 6 unsuccessful IUIs, infertility based on a male or tubal factor); spontaneous, regular ovulatory menstrual cycle; 2 ovaries and a normal uterine cavity; aged 18‐38 years.

Exclusion criteria: FSH ≥ 12 IU/L on cycle day 2‐4; BMI > 30 kg/m2; abnormal gynaecological bleeding; extrauterine pregnancy within the last 3 months; previous ART cycles with < 3 oocytes or severe OHSS; any contraindication to receive gonadotrophins or OCP; PCOS.

Mean age ± SD: intervention group: 32.3 ± 4.0 years; control group: 33.3 ± 3.8 years.

Interventions

Intervention: COCP (ethinyl oestradiol 30 μg + levonorgestrel 150 μg) for 14‐28 days, started cycle day 2 or 3 + rFSH (150‐300 IU), started post‐treatment day 2 or 3 (= stimulation day 1) + GnRH antagonist (antide 0.5 mg/mL daily), started stimulation day 6.

Control: rFSH (150‐300 IU), started on cycle days 2 or 3 (= stimulation day 1) + GnRH antagonist (antide 0.5 mg/mL daily), started on stimulation day 6.

rFSH dose adjustments after 5 days of stimulation (up to a maximum of 450 IU), according to number and size of oocytes and risk for OHSS.

Both rFSH and GnRH antagonist were continued until hCG injection (6500 IU), administered when ≥ 1 follicle reached a diameter ≥ 18 mm + ≥ 2 follicles reached a diameter ≥ 16 mm.

Outcomes

  • Ongoing pregnancy rate: positive heart activity at gestational age of 12 weeks.

  • Clinical pregnancy rate: presence of ≥ 1 intrauterine sac confirmed with ultrasound at gestational age of 6 weeks.

  • Number of oocytes retrieved.

  • Ovarian cysts: not defined.

  • Number and size of follicles.

  • Cumulative dose of rFSH.

  • Duration of r‐FSH treatment.

  • Implantation rates.

  • Serum hormone concentrations.

  • Endometrial thickness.

  • Bleeding pattern.

Notes

Power calculation performed: yes.

ITT analysis performed: no.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "64 patients were randomly allocated according to a computer‐generated, blocked randomization list. The randomization was stratified by centre."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Treatment allocation was decided by an independent person from an independent monitoring company..."

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Open‐label study.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Proportions of withdrawals were fairly balanced between groups (3% in intervention group vs 0% in control group).

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Data on all planned outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

No significant differences in baseline characteristics with regard to age, BMI, cycle length, primary infertility, smoking habits, duration of infertility, type of infertility and antral follicle count.

Huirne 2006c

Methods

Multicentre (8 IVF centres), parallel group study.

Number of women recruited: 216.

Number of women excluded: 34 (reasons not reported).

Number of women randomized: 182 (91 in each group).

Number of withdrawals: 22 (10 in intervention group: 1 due to hepatitis B, 1 due to non‐compliance, 1 due to personal reasons, 2 due to insufficient follicular response, 1 due to conversion to IUI, 1 due to absence of mature oocytes, 3 due to absence of viable embryos; 12 in control group: 2 due to spontaneous pregnancy, 3 due to failure of desensitisation, 1 due to personal reasons, 1 due to stimulation failure, 3 due to absence of 'mature' oocytes, 2 due to failure of fertilisation).

Number of women analyzed: 182.

Participants

Country of authors: the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Austria.

Inclusion criteria: regular IVF/ICSI indication, male partner with viable sperm in the ejaculate, aged 18‐39 years.

Exclusion criteria: any previous ART cycles with < 3 oocytes or ≥ 3 consecutive ART cycles without a clinical pregnancy, any contraindication to ART, gonadotrophins or OCPs, significant systemic disease.

Mean age ± SD: intervention group: 32.8 ± 3.8 years; control group: 32.2 ± 4.2 years.

Interventions

Intervention: COCP (ethinyl oestradiol 30 μg + levonorgestrel 150 μg daily), started within 5 days of onset of menses for 21‐28 days (stop on a Sunday) + r‐hFSH (150‐225 IU/day), started post‐treatment day 5 (= stimulation day 1) + GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix acetate 0.25 mg/day, SC), started stimulation day 6.

Control: GnRH agonist (buserelin acetate 500 μg/day, SC), started cycle day 18‐22 (reducing dose to 200 μg/day when downregulation was achieved) + r‐hFSH (150‐225 IU/day), started when downregulation was achieved.

After 5 days of r‐hFSH treatment, the dose could be adjusted by steps of 75 IU (maximal dose 450 IU/day), according to the ovarian response.

Both rhFSH and GnRH analogues were continued until hCG injection, administered when the largest follicle reached a mean diameter ≥ 18 mm and ≥ 2 other follicles had a mean diameter ≥ 16 mm.

Outcomes

  • Ongoing pregnancy rate: positive heart activity at a gestational age of 12 weeks.

  • Clinical pregnancy rate: presence of ≥ 1 foetal sacs with or without heart activity confirmed with ultrasound, performed at least 4 weeks after embryo transfer.

  • Numbers of oocytes retrieved per woman.

  • Multiple clinical pregnancies.

  • Total number of oocyte retrievals performed on weekends or public holidays.

  • Cancellation rate.

  • Drug requirements.

  • Total number of (good quality) embryos.

  • Implantation rate.

Notes

Power calculation performed: yes.

ITT analysis performed: no.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "182 were randomly allocated to...", "The treatment assigned to each patient was determined according to a computer‐generated concealed randomization list. Randomization was performed by centre."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"Concealed randomization list," method not reported.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

All women randomized were included in final analysis.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Data on all planned outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

No significant difference in baseline characteristics with regard to age, race, duration of infertility, cause of infertility, smoking habits, primary infertility, number of previous ART attempts, number of follicles, endometrial thickness, FSH levels and oestradiol levels.

P value of BMI was 0.04.

Hwang 2004

Methods

Single‐centre, parallel group study.

Number of women recruited: 60.

Number of women excluded: 4 (2 refused to participate, 2 did not meet inclusion criteria).

Number of women randomized: 56 (27 in intervention group; 29 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: 7 (2 in intervention group: 1 due to poor ovarian response, 1 due to personal reasons; 5 in control group: 2 due to inadequate ovarian response, 3 due to risk of severe OHSS).

Number of women analyzed: 49.

Participants

Country: Taiwan.

Inclusion criteria: PCOS.

Exclusion criteria: diagnosis of congenital adrenal hyperplasia, Cushing's syndrome, androgen‐producing tumours, hyperprolactinaemia or thyroid dysfunction; aged > 38 years; serum FSH levels > 12 mIU/mL.

Mean age ± SD: intervention group: 31.4 ± 3.5 years; control group: 31.7 ± 3.7 years

Interventions

Intervention: COCP (Diane‐35, oral) on cycle days 5‐25 for 3 consecutive cycles + GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix acetate 0.25 mg single dose, SC on post‐treatment day 3; 0.125 mg/day on post‐treatment days 4‐9; and 0.25 mg/day started post‐treatment day 10 + hMG 150 IU/day), started post‐treatment day 4.

Control: GnRH agonist (buserelin acetate 500 μg/day, long protocol) started day 3 of induced or spontaneous menstruation, and 250 μg/day started day of ensuing pituitary downregulation + hMG (150 IU/day) for 6 days started when pituitary downregulation was achieved.

hMG dose can be adjusted according to woman's follicular response.

Pituitary downregulation achieved when serum oestradiol levels < 50 pg/mL and there was an absence of ovarian cysts > 10 mm in diameter.

Both GnRH analogues and hMG were continued until hCG injection (10,000 IU, IM), administered when ≥ 2 follicles reached 18 mm in diameter with adequate oestradiol response.

Outcomes

  • Fertilisation.

  • Clinical pregnancy: presence of ≥ 1 foetal heart beat confirmed with ultrasound, performed 7 weeks after embryo transfer.

  • Implantation rates.

  • Serum LH and testosterone status upon starting and during hMG administration.

  • Total days and amount of gonadotrophins administered: measured in ampoules.

  • Pregnancy loss.

  • Multiple pregnancy rate: ongoing or live born.

  • OHSS: not defined.

Notes

Power calculation performed: yes.

ITT analysis performed: no

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Randomization was done by opening sealed envelopes containing computer‐generated block randomization numbers with a block size of 10."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Sealed envelopes.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Quote: "The laboratory staff were blinded to the stimulation protocol."

Unclear if treating physicians were blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Reasons for withdrawals and proportions of withdrawals were not balanced between groups and data were not analyzed on the basis of ITT.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Data on all planned outcomes were reported.

Other bias

Low risk

No significant difference in baseline characteristics with regard to age, duration of infertility, BMI and hormonal levels.

Kim 2011

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 120.

Number of withdrawals: 0.

Number of women analyzed: 120.

Duration of study: 1 cycle.

Participants

Country of authors: South Korea.

120 poor responders (repeated day 3 levels of FSH > 8.5 mIU/mL or antral follicle count ≤ 5, or both). 40 in each group.

Inclusion criteria: not clearly stated.

Exclusion criteria: PCOS (Rotterdam criteria).

Mean age ± SD: group 1: 36.7 ± 3.1 years; group 2: 35.9 ± 2.8 years; group 3: 36.4 ± 3.3 years.

Setting: university‐based infertility clinic, Seoul. Korea.

Interventions

Pretreatment was ethinyl oestradiol 0.03 mg and levonorgestrel 0,15 mg for 21 days in the cycle preceding COS.

Group 1: GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol after OCP pretreatment. Ovarian stimulation started 5 days after OCP discontinued using rFSH (225 IU/day, dose adjusted every 3‐4 days). Cerotide (0.25 mg) started when lead follicle was 14 mm diameter and continued until day of hCG injection.

Group 2 GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol without OCP pretreatment. Ovarian stimulation started on cycle day 3 using rFSH (225 IU/day, dose adjusted every 3‐4 days). Cerotide (0.25 mg) started when lead follicle was 14 mm diameter and continued until day of hCG injection.

Group 3: GnRH agonist luteal low‐dose long protocol without OCP pretreatment. Daily injection of decapeptyl (0.1 mg) started from mid‐luteal phase and continued until menses followed by a dose reduction to 0.05 mg daily and continued until day of hCG injection.

Outcomes

Primary:

  • Number of mature oocytes retrieved.

Secondary:

  • Total amount and days of rFSH.

  • Number of fertilised oocytes and grade I and II embryos.

  • Implantation rate ongoing pregnancy rate.

  • Clinical pregnancy rate per cycle and live birth rate per cycle.

  • Miscarriage rate.

Notes

Power calculation: yes.

ITT analysis: yes.

Earlier publications were Kim 2005 and Kim 2009.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Computer generated lists."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "The sequence of allocation to the three groups was provided to the investigating physicians."

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

In groups 1 and 3 there were no losses, withdrawals or cancellations. In group 2, 1 cycle was cancelled before embryo transfer; all women randomized were included in data analysis.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

All outcomes listed were reported although multiple pregnancy was reported it is not listed a priori.

Other bias

Low risk

Groups similar at baseline with respect to demographic characteristics.

Kolibianakis 2006

Methods

Academic, single centre, parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 504 (250 in intervention group; 254 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: 79 (36 in intervention group: 28 due to personal reasons, 6 due to abnormal steroid levels, 2 due to spontaneous pregnancy; 43 in control group: 31 due to personal reasons, 10 due to abnormal steroid levels, 2 due to spontaneous pregnancy).

Number of women analyzed: 425.

Duration of study: 3 years of recruitment.

Source of funding: the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders.

Participants

Country: Belgium.

Inclusion criteria: aged < 39 years, ≤ 3 previous ART attempts, BMI 18‐29 kg/m2, FSH < 10 IU/L, LH < 10 IU/L.

Exclusion criteria: polycystic ovaries, endometriosis > stage II, poor response to ovarian stimulation

Mean age ± SD: intervention group: 31.2 ± 0.3 years; control group: 31.5 ± 0.3 years.

Interventions

Intervention: COCP (ethinyl oestradiol 30 μg + desogestrel 150 μg) for 14 days, started cycle day 1 + rFSH (200 IU/day) (fixed dose), started post‐treatment day 5 + GnRH antagonist (ganirelix acetate).

Control: rFSH (200 IU/day) (fixed dose), started cycle day 2 + GnRH antagonist (ganirelix acetate).

Timing of GnRH antagonist not reported.

Both rFSH and GnRH antagonist continued until hCG injection (10,000 IU), administered when ≥ 3 follicles ≥ 17 mm in diameter.

Outcomes

  • Ongoing pregnancies per started cycles equivalent to number of participants): developing beyond 12 weeks.

  • Stimulation length.

  • Gonadotrophin consumption.

  • Early pregnancy loss: proportion of women with initially positive hCG in whom pregnancy failed to develop before 12 weeks of gestation.

Notes

Power calculation performed: yes.

ITT analysis performed: no.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Randomized on the basis of a computer‐generated list."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Quote: "... randomized at the outpatient clinic by the treating physician." "The sequence of allocation was not concealed and thus it was possible for the treating physician to be aware of the next treatment to be allocated."

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Treating physician not blinded as this was the person to allocate the participants.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Reasons for withdrawals and proportions of withdrawals fairly balanced between groups.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Data on all planned outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

No significant differences in baseline characteristics with regard to age, BMI, primary/secondary infertility, duration of infertility, number of previous IVF trials, indication for treatment.

Lukaszuk 2015

Methods

2‐arm parallel multicentre RCT.

Number of women randomized: 298 (154 in intervention group; 144 in control group).

Withdrawals: not reported.

Number of women analyzed: not reported.

Participants

Country: Poland.

Inclusion criteria: women aged < 40 years, AMH > 0.6 ng/mL, BMI 18‐29 kg/m2, and undergoing a first or second treatment cycle of IVF with ICSI.

Exclusion criteria: presence of endometriosis and pre‐implantation diagnosis cycles.

Mean age ± SD: intervention group: 32.5 ± 3.97; control group: 32.5 ± 2.96 years.

BMI (mean ± SD): intervention group: 22.2 ± 1.3 kg/m2; control group: 22.4 ± 1.1 kg/m2.

Setting: infertility clinics, 2 centres.

Interventions

Intervention: OCP pretreatment: pretreated with COCP (Ovulastan, Adamed, Pabianice, Poland) from day 2‐4 of the cycle. Beginning from the day 14 of cycle, pituitary was suppressed by administering triptorelin (0.1 mg) every 2 days; treatment continued for 2 weeks. Ovarian stimulation started with gonadotropin injections (150‐225 IU/day) starting from days 2‐4 of cycle and continued with a daily dose of triptorelin (0.1 mg) until hCG injection was administered 36 hours before retrieval.

Control: oestradiol pretreatment: pretreated with oral oestradiol (2 mg twice daily) from day 20 of natural cycle until the day 1‐4 of the new cycle. Ovarian stimulation started with hMG injections (150‐225 IU/day) starting from days 2‐4 of cycle, 2 days after discontinuation of oestradiol administration, and continued with a daily dose of triptorelin (0.1 mg) until the hCG injection 5000 IU was administered 36 hours before retrieval.

Outcomes

  • Clinical pregnancy.

  • Number of oocyte retrieved.

  • Multiple pregnancy.

  • Duration of stimulation days.

Notes

All outcomes were measured in denominators other than "per woman randomized."

Power calculation was performed.

No, outcome measured in denominators other than "per woman randomized."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Randomisation using "block randomization software."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Only doctors who retrieved oocytes and embryologists were blinded to treatment groups.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No information reported on reasons for withdrawals and proportion of withdrawals.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Important outcome measures were prespecified in the methods section and data were reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Demographic and infertility characteristics similar between the two groups.

Nyboe Andersen 2011

Methods

Parallel group multicentre study.

Number of women randomized: 442 (223 in intervention group; 219 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: 34 (14 in intervention group; 20 in the control group due to adverse events, withdrawal of consent, spontaneous pregnancy and "other" reasons).

Number of women analyzed: 408 (209 in intervention group; 199 in control group).

Participants

Country: multicentre (USA, Europe).

Inclusion criteria: aged 18‐39 years, BMI ≤ 32 kg/m2, menstrual cycle length 24‐35 days, access to ejaculatory sperm, indication for COS and IVF or ICSI or IVF plus ICSI and scheduled for first COS cycle.

Exclusion criteria: history of endocrine abnormality, < 2 ovaries or any other ovarian abnormality, presence of unilateral or bilateral hydrosalpinx, clinically relevant pathology affecting the uterine cavity, fibroids ≥ 5 cm, history of recurrent miscarriage (≥ 3), with or without FSH or LH levels > 12 IU/L in the early follicular phase.

Mean age ± SD: intervention group: 31.8 ± 3.7 years; control group: 31.6 ± 4.1 years.

Setting: 8 centres in USA, 6 centres in Europe (Denmark, Germany, Spain and Turkey).

Interventions

Intervention: COCP pretreatment: Marvelon (ethinyl oestradiol 30 μg + desogestrel 150 μg) for 14‐21 days. Women started daily rFSH 5 days after stopping COCP pretreatment provided a withdrawal bleed occurred.

Control: no pretreatment: daily rFSH on day 2 or 3 of the next menstrual cycle.

In both groups, a single SC injection of rFSH (200 IU) started on stimulation day 1 and continued daily up to and including day of triggering of final oocyte maturation by urinary hCG. Maximum total duration of stimulation 19 days. Starting on day 5 of stimulation, all women received ganirelix (0.25 mg/day).

Outcomes

Primary:

  • Number of oocytes obtained.

Secondary:

  • Number of follicles ≥ 11 mm at day 8.

  • Number of follicles ≥ 11 mm at day of hCG.

Other:

  • Duration of stimulation.

  • Total rFSH dose.

  • Number of embryos.

  • Number of embryos transferred.

  • Implantation rate.

  • Clinical pregnancy rate.

  • Ongoing pregnancy rate.

Notes

Power calculation for sample size: yes (200 women per group with an additional 20 to compensate for discontinuation).

ITT analysis: modified: all randomized women who received at least 1 dose of rFSH.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Study reported as open label.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Minimal (< 10%) discontinuations and balanced between groups with similar reasons given.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

All prespecified outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Groups appeared balanced at baseline with respect to age, BMI, age at menarche, duration of infertility, cycle length, alcohol use and smoking.

Obruca 2002

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 150 (75 in each group).

Number of withdrawals: not reported.

Number of women analyzed: unclear.

Participants

Country of authors: Austria.

Inclusion criteria: women undergoing COS and IVF.

Exclusion criteria: not reported.

Mean age: not reported.

Interventions

Intervention: COCP (ethinyl oestradiol 30 μg + desogestrel 150 μg daily), started cycle day 1 for 18‐28 days (stopped on a Sunday) + rFSH (150 IU/day), started post‐treatment day 5 (= stimulation day 1) + GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix acetate 0.25 mg/day), started stimulation day 6.

Control: rFSH 150 IU/day, started cycle day 3 (= stimulation day 1) + GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix acetate 0.25 mg/day), started stimulation day 6.

Both rFSH and GnRH antagonist continued until final follicular maturation.

Outcomes

  • Number of cancelled cycles.

  • Number of oocytes.

  • Number of transferred embryos.

  • Clinical pregnancy rate; not defined.

  • Number of weekend oocyte retrievals.

Notes

Power calculation performed: unclear.

ITT analysis performed: unclear.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"Randomized," method not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Number and reasons for withdrawals not reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

All planned outcomes not reported.

Other bias

Unclear risk

No data on baseline characteristics reported.

Porrati 2010

Methods

2‐arm parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 150 women (75 in each group).

Number of withdrawals: 4 women in intervention group; 3 in control group did not have embryo transfer.

Number of women analyzed: 71 in intervention group; 72 in control group.

Duration of study: 1 year of recruitment.

Source of funding: Yazd IVF Centre, Yazd, Iran.

Participants

Country of authors: Argentina.

Inclusion criteria: aged < 39 years, first IVF attempt, baseline FSH < 12 mlU/mL.

Exclusion criteria: PCOS, prior ovarian surgery and TESE needing.

Mean age: not reported.

Interventions

Intervention: COCP group: April® (ethinyl oestradiol 20 μg + levonorgestrel 100 μg) for 21 days in preceding cycle and follicular development induced using rFSH (200 IU/day) from menstrual cycle day 2‐3.

Control: rFSH (200 IU/day) from menstrual cycle day 2‐3.

Both groups received GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix 0.25 mg, SC) in flexible protocol starting when the leading follicle reached 14 mm continuing daily until the day of hCG administration.

Outcomes

  • Dose of gonadotrophin administered.

  • Days of gonadotrophin treatment.

  • Clinical pregnancy.

Notes

Power calculation not reported.

ITT: no.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Proportions of exclusion and reason for exclusion similar between groups.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

All reported outcomes pre‐specified in the methods section.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to make a conclusive judgement.

Raoofi 2008

Methods

Academic, single‐centre, parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 54 women (number of women per group not reported).

Number of withdrawals: 3 women excluded due to incomplete data.

Number of women analyzed: 51.

Duration of study: 1 year of recruitment.

Source of funding: Yazd IVF Centre, Yazd, Iran.

Participants

Country: Iran.

Inclusion criteria: women undergoing IVF and ICSI.

Exclusion criteria: not reported.

Mean age ± SD: intervention: 31.48 ± 5.82 years; control: 35.27 ± 4.13 years.

Interventions

Intervention: COCP (ethinyl oestradiol 30 μg + desogestrel 150 μg), on cycle days 1‐14 + GnRH agonist (triptorelin acetate depot 3.75 mg, IM) single dose on post‐treatment day 1 + hMG (FSH 75 IU + LH 75 IU), started post‐treatment day 2.

Control: GnRH agonist (triptorelin acetate depot 3.75 mg, IM) single dose on cycle day 1 + hMG (FSH 75 IU + LH 75 IU), started cycle day 1.

Outcomes

  • Cyst formation > 28 mm: measured 7 and 14 days after pituitary suppression.

  • Number of follicles.

  • Number of oocytes retrieved.

  • Implantation rate.

  • Clinical pregnancy rate: presence of ≥ 1 foetal heart beats confirmed with ultrasound performed ≥ 4 weeks after embryo transfer.

Notes

Power calculation performed: no.

ITT analysis performed: unclear.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"Randomized allocation method," method not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No information on reasons for withdrawals and proportions of withdrawals per treatment group.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

All planned outcomes not reported.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Number of women per group not reported.

Quote: "The etiology and duration of infertility were equally distributed among the groups." No table of demographic characteristics available.

Rombauts 2006

Methods

Multicentre (10 IVF centres), parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 351 (117 in each group).

Number of withdrawals: 19 (5 due to spontaneous pregnancy: 2 in COCP group; 3 in GnRH antagonist group). Other reasons not reported.

Number of women analyzed: 332 (111 in COCP group; 110 in GnRH antagonist group; 111 in GnRH agonist group).

Participants

Country: Australia, Denmark, Jordan and Norway.
Inclusion criteria: healthy women of infertile couples, aged 18‐39 years, BMI 18‐29 kg/m2, bodyweight ≤ 90 kg, normal menstrual cycle with a range of 24‐35 days and intra‐individual variation of ± 3 days.

Exclusion criteria: contraindications for the use of gonadotrophins, endocrine abnormalities (e.g. PCOS), > 3 unsuccessful COS cycles, history of low or no ovarian response during FSH/hMG treatment, clinically relevant abnormal laboratory values (including hormones) or medical examination findings.

Mean age ± SD: COCP group: 32.7 ± 3.9 years; GnRH antagonist group: 32.1 ± 3.7 years; GnRH agonist group: 32.2 ± 4.0 years.

Interventions

COCP group: COCP (ethinyl oestradiol 30 μg + desogestrel 150 μg daily), started cycle day 1 for 14‐28 days (depending on the planned started of rFSH treatment) + rFSH (follitropin beta 200 IU/day, SC), started post‐treatment day 2 (= stimulation day 1) + GnRH antagonist (ganirelix acetate 0.25 mg/day, SC), started stimulation day 5 or 6.

GnRH antagonist: rFSH (follitropin beta 200 IU/day, SC), started cycle day 2 or 3 (= stimulation day 1) + GnRH antagonist (ganirelix acetate 0.25 mg/day, SC), started stimulation day 5 or 6.

GnRH agonist: nafarelin acetate (0.8 mg/day, intranasal), started cycle day 21‐24 + rFSH (follitropin beta 200 IU/day, SC), started when downregulation (i.e. serum oestradiol ≤ 50 pg/mL) achieved after 2‐4 weeks of GnRH agonist treatment).

After 5‐6 days of rFSH treatment, dose could be adjusted depending on the ovarian response as assessed by ultrasound.

rFSH and GnRH analogues are both continued until hCG injection (10,000 IU, SC or IM), administered when ≥ 3 follicles ≥ 17 mm in diameter, or ≥ 1 follicle ≥ 20 mm in diameter.

Outcomes

  • Ongoing pregnancy rate: assessed by ultrasound at ≥ 12‐16 weeks.

  • Number of cumulus‐oocyte complexes.

  • Number of grade 1 or 2 embryos.

  • Number and size of follicles.

  • Serum hormone values.

  • Duration of rFSH treatment.

  • Total rFSH dose.

  • Number of good‐quality embryos.

  • Implantation rate.

  • Incidences of LH rises.

  • Pregnancy loss.

  • OHSS: according to WHO classification.

Notes

Power calculation performed: yes.

ITT analysis performed: no.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "The subjects were randomly assigned..." "To improve balance, the randomization of subjects to treatment was stratified for type of infertility (primary or secondary), IVF or ICSI, centre, and age."

Method not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "...by central remote allocation."

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Open‐label study.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Proportions of withdrawals fairly balanced between groups although reasons for withdrawals were not completely reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Data on all planned outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

No differences in baseline characteristics with regard to age, BMI, height and weight.

Salat‐Baroux 1988

Methods

Parallel group study.

4 study arms (A1+A2 and B1+B2), of which we can only include 2 study arms (A2 and B2).

Number of women randomized: 42 (21 in intervention group (A2); 21 in control group (B2)).

Number of withdrawals: 13 (8 in intervention group (A2): 3 due to poorly followed treatment, 1 due to inadequate response, 2 due to spontaneous ovulation, 2 due to other reasons; 5 in control group (B2): 1 due to ovarian cyst, 4 due to inadequate response).

Number of women analyzed: 29.

Duration of study: 7 months of recruitment.

Participants

Country of authors: France.

Inclusion criteria: infertile women scheduled for IVF treatment, aged < 38 years.

Exclusion criteria: not reported.

Mean age ± SD: intervention group (A1+A2): 32.8 ± 0.7 years; control group (B1+B2): 31.7 ± 0.5 years.

Interventions

Intervention (A2): progestogen (ethynodiol acetate 2 mg twice daily) for 11‐17 days, started cycle day 15 + pure FSH 4 ampoules on post‐treatment days 6‐7 and 2 ampoules on post‐treatment days 8‐9 + hMG (FSH 75 IU + LH 75 IU) 2 ampoules on post‐treatment days 10‐11.

Control (B2): pure FSH 4 ampoules on cycle days 2‐3 and 2 ampoules on cycle days 4‐5 + hMG (FSH 75 IU + LH 75 IU) when needed.

FSH and GnRH agonist both continued until hCG injection (10,000 IU), administration depending on follicular maturity.

Outcomes

  • Clinical pregnancy rate: not defined.

  • Pregnancy loss.

  • Day of hCG.

  • Values of oestradiol and P on day of hCG.

  • Number of oocytes recovered, cleaved or replaced.

Notes

Power calculation performed: no.

ITT analysis performed: no.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"Randomized," method not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Proportions of, and reasons for, withdrawals not balanced between groups and data not analyzed on the basis of ITT.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

All planned outcomes not reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Baseline demographic characteristics balanced between groups.

Shaker 1995

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 49 (number per group not reported; 22 cycles in intervention group; 29 cycles in control group) but total number of cycles not the same as total number of women randomized.

Number of withdrawals: 11 cycles (3 in intervention group: 2 due to poor response, 1 due to failure of embryo cleavage; 8 in control group: 3 due to conversion to IUI, 1 due to poor response, 2 due to failed fertilisation, 2 due to risk of OHSS).

Number of women analyzed: unclear.

Duration of study: 8 months of recruitment.

Participants

Country of authors: UK.

Inclusion criteria: women who underwent IVF treatment cycles and had an ovarian cyst > 15 mm in diameter or an endometrial thickness > 5 mm and serum oestradiol concentration > 100 pmol/L after 14 days of GnRH agonist (buserelin acetate) treatment

Exclusion criteria: relevant uterine or ovarian pathology.

Mean age ± SEM: intervention group: 36.0 ± 0.86 years; control group: 35.72 ± 0.69 years.

Interventions

Intervention: GnRH agonist (buserelin acetate 500 μg/day) started cycle day 2 or 3 + progestogen (100 mg IM single dose) on cycle day 16 or 17 + hMG, started when serum oestradiol concentration ≤ 100 pmol/L.

Control: GnRH agonist (buserelin acetate 500 μg/day), started cycle day 2 or 3 + hMG, started when serum oestradiol concentration ≤ 100 pmol/L.

hMG start dose according to women's age, baseline serum FSH level, response to stimulation in previous treatment cycles.

hMG and GnRH agonist both continued until hCG injection (10,000 IU), administered when 3 follicles ≥ 18 mm in diameter.

Outcomes

  • Clinical pregnancy rate: not defined.

  • Serum oestradiol levels on day of recruitment.

  • Number of days of hMG administration.

  • Number of days of GnRH agonist.

  • Endometrial thickness.

  • Mean diameter of ovarian cyst on day of recruitment and 6 days later.

  • Total number of hMG ampoules.

  • Number of follicles.

  • Number of oocytes retrieved.

  • Number of embryos transferred.

Notes

Power calculation performed: no.

ITT analysis performed: unclear.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Randomization was done by drawing sequentially labelled sealed envelops, each containing a number obtained from a table of random numbers."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Sealed envelopes.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Reasons for withdrawals and proportions of participants who withdrew not reported per treatment group.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Data on all planned outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

No significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups with regard to age, length of infertility, number of previous IVF cycles and cause of infertility.

Tan 2001

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 117 (number per group not reported).

Number of withdrawals: not reported.

Number of women analyzed: unclear.

Participants

Country of authors: Canada.

Inclusion criteria: not reported.

Exclusion criteria: not reported.

Mean age: not reported.

Interventions

Intervention: progestogen (norethindrone) for 5 days, started cycle day 1 + GnRH agonist, start cycle day 2.

Control: GnRH agonist. Timing of treatment not reported.

Outcomes

  • Cyst formation.

  • Time required to achieve pituitary suppression.

  • Implantation rate.

  • Pregnancy rate.

Notes

Power calculation performed: unclear.

ITT analysis used: unclear.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No data reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

All prespecified outcomes not reported.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to make a conclusive judgement.

Vilela 2011

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 210 (105 to each group).

Number of withdrawals: 5 (4 in intervention group; 1 in control group).

Number of women analyzed: not clear; assumed 205.

Participants

Country: Argentina.

Inclusion criteria: aged ≤ 39 years, first IVF attempt, basal FSH ≤ 12 mIU/mL.

Exclusion criteria: PCOS, prior ovarian surgery, "TESE needing."

Mean age: not reported.

Setting: assume single fertility centre in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Interventions

Intervention: COCP (ethinyl oestradiol 0.02 mg + levonorgestrel 0.1 mg) for 14/25 days in the preceding cycle.

Control: no pretreatment.

All women stimulated with rFSH (200 IU/day) from menstrual cycle day 2 or 3, hMG (225 UI/day) from day 4 and GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix 0.25 mg) in a flexible protocol starting with 14 mm leading follicle continuing both daily until the day of hCG. Oocyte maturation was triggered by rhCG (250 μg). Embryo transfer performed 3 days later.

Outcomes

Primary:

  • Clinical pregnancy rate.

Other:

  • Total gonadotropin stimulation days.

  • Fertilisation rate.

  • Implantation rate.

  • Number of oocytes retrieved.

  • Total number of embryos achieved.

  • Embryo quality rate.

Notes

Abstract with minimal data reported.

Power calculation for sample size: not reported.

ITT analysis: not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Proportions of withdrawals fairly balanced between groups although reasons for withdrawals not reported.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Outcome data not clearly reported.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Not clear whether groups were comparable at baseline with respect to demographic characteristics.

Ye 2009

Methods

Parallel group study.

Number of women randomized: 220 (109 in intervention group; 111 in control group).

Number of withdrawals: none reported.

Number of women analyzed: 208 cycles (103 in intervention group; 105 in control group) and numbers of cycles were equivalent to numbers of participants.

Participants

Country: China.

Inclusion criteria: aged 25‐35 years; BMI 18‐25 kg/m2; number of previous IVF cycles < 3, and no previous poor response to ovarian stimulation (poor ovarian response characterised by cancellation of the cycle due to either poor follicular development or ≤ 4 cumulus‐oocyte‐complexes collected at oocyte retrieval); normal ovulatory cycles (25‐35 days); both ovaries present and normal uterus; no hormone therapy within the past 3 months; no current or past diseases affecting ovaries, gonadotrophin, sex steroid secretion, clearance or excretion.

Exclusion criteria: not explicitly reported.

Age range: 25‐35 years.

Setting: IVF centre, China.

Interventions

Intervention: oral oestradiol valerate (4 mg/day) preceding the IVF cycle from day 21 until day 2 of next cycle before GnRH antagonist protocol.

Control: standard long GnRH agonist protocol.

Outcomes

  • Number of oocytes collected.

  • MII oocytes.

  • Fertilisation.

  • Implantation.

  • Live birth.

  • Early pregnancy rate.

  • Clinical pregnancy rate.

  • OHSS rate.

  • Hormone profiles.

Notes

Outcomes measured as per 'embryo transfer cycle' but numbers of cycles transferred were equivalent to numbers of women randomized.

Power calculation for sample size: not reported.

ITT analysis: not reported.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Randomization allocation sequence was generated from a table of computer‐generated random numbers."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

"This study was not blind."

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

No withdrawals reported, cycle cancellation (number of cycles were equivalent to numbers of women randomized) similar between groups.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

All prespecified outcomes reported.

Other bias

Low risk

Groups comparable at baseline with respect to demographic characteristics.

17‐βE2: 17‐beta oestradiol; AMH: anti‐mullerian hormone; BMI: body mass index; COCP: combined oral contraceptive pill; COH: controlled ovarian hyperstimulation; COS: controlled ovarian stimulation; FSH: follicle‐stimulating hormone; rFSH: recombinant follicle‐stimulating hormone; GnRH: gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone; GnRHa: gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone analogue; hMG: human menopausal gonadotrophin; IM: intramuscular; ITT: intention to treat; IU: international unit; IUI: intrauterine insemination; IVF: in vitro fertilisation; IVF‐ET: in vitro fertilisation with embryo transfer; LH: luteinising hormone; OCP: oral contraceptive pill; OHSS: ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; PCOS: polycystic ovary syndrome; PO: per os (oral); rhCG: recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin; SC: subcutaneous; SD: standard deviation; SEM: standardized mean difference; TESE: testicular epididymal sperm extraction; WHO: World Health Organization.

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Aghahosseini 2011

Randomisation status unknown.

al‐Mizyen 2000

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Anderson 1990

Not an RCT. Women only received controlled ovarian stimulation, but no embryo transfer as part of an ART cycle.

Bakas 2014

Did not state that allocation randomised.

Bellver 2007

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Benadiva 1988

Not an RCT.

Bendikson 2006

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Biljan 1998c

Not an RCT. Retrospective study. Each woman served as her own control.

Branigan 1998

Not an RCT. Each woman served as her own control.

Brodt 1993

Not an RCT. Single arm study.

Chung 2006

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Monophasic OCP vs triphasic OCP.

Cohen 1987

Not an RCT.

Copperman 2003

Not an RCT.

Couzinet 1995

Not an RCT. Naltrexone used in treatment protocol.

Cédrin‐Durnerin 1995

Not an RCT.

Cédrin‐Durnerin 1996

Cross‐over design with no pre‐cross‐over data.

Damario 1997

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Davar 2014

RCT status unclear. Number of women randomised at baseline not stated.

Davy 2004

Compared different durations of COCP pretreatment.

De Ziegler 1999

Not an RCT. Open single‐arm study.

Dickey 2001

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Ditkoff 1997

Not an RCT.

Doody 2001

Not an RCT. Women were oocyte donors. Compared different durations of COCP pretreatment.

Duvan 2008

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Engels 2011

Number of women randomised or analysed in each treatment group not reported.

Fanchin 2001

Cross‐over design with no pre‐cross‐over data.

Fanchin 2003b

Not an RCT. Each woman served as her own control. Women only received controlled ovarian stimulation, but no embryo transfer as part of an ART cycle.

Feichtinger 1991

Randomised comparison of different types of COCP.

Fisch 1996

Not an RCT. Each woman served as her own control.

Forman 1991

Not an RCT.

Frederick 2004

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Frydman 1986

Not an RCT.

Galera 2004

Not an RCT.

Gerli 1989

Not an RCT. Single‐arm study.

Ghanem 2015

Intervention not relevant: luteal phase support.

Godin 2003

Not an RCT.

Gomez 2000

Compared 2 different ways of administration of oestrogen.

Gonen 1990

Not an RCT. Clomiphene citrate used in treatment protocol.

Gonzalez 1995

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Greco 2016

Intervention not relevant: OCP used for endometrial preparation before embryo transfer and used as luteal phase support.

Guivarc'h‐Levêque 2009

Quasi‐randomised

Haydardedeoglu 2012

Both groups received COCP pretreatment, no control group.

Hugues 1992

Not an RCT. Single‐arm study.

Jung 2000

Oestrogen pretreatment not stopped before oocyte retrieval, but also used as luteal phase support.

Karande 2004

Compared 2 different ways of administration of a combined contraceptive (Nuvaring vs oral Desogen).

Keltz 2007

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Kovacs 2001

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Kreiner 2007

Interventions not relevant (OCP vs OCP).

Leondires 1999

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Letterie 2000

Women only received oestrogen plus progestogen, but no gonadotrophins or GnRH analogues as part of an ART cycle. Compared 2 different timings of administration.

Lewin 2002

Compared 2 different doses of oestrogen treatment for endometrial preparation.

Lindheim 1996

Not an RCT.

Liu 2011

Interventions not relevant (OCP vs Nuvaring with similar contents as OCP).

Loutradis 2003

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Martinez 2006

Women were oocyte donors.

Mashiach 1989

Compared different durations of COCP pretreatment.

Meldrum 2002

Not an RCT. Open‐label single‐arm study.

Meldrum 2008

Not an RCT. Open‐label single‐arm study.

Merviel 2015

Alternate randomisation was used.

Min 2005

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Mirkin 2003

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Mulangi 1997

Not an RCT. Each woman served as her own control.

Neal 1993

Not an RCT.

Pados 1995

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Prednisolone used in treatment protocol.

Palomba 2008

Not an RCT.

Pinkas 2008

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Ramsewak 2005

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Rashidi 2011

Intervention not relevant: luteal phase support.

Russell 1997

Compared different doses and timings of oestrogen pretreatments.

Sanghvi 2002

Not an RCT. Retrospective study. Single‐arm study.

Schoolcraft 1997

Not an RCT.

Steinkampf 1991

Women only received ovulation induction, no embryo transfer as part of an ART cycle.

Surrey 1989

Not an RCT.

Surrey 1998

Not an RCT. Each woman served as her own control.

Talebian 2004

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Talebian 2007

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Tarlatzis 1993

Not an RCT.

Tartagni 2007

Women had premature ovarian failure.

Tehraninejad 2010

Interventions not relevant (OCP vs OCP)

Wang 2008

Cross‐over design with no pre‐cross‐over data.

Wang 2016

Not a true RCT: randomisation according to alternate number allocation; intervention not relevant: co‐administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate with the stimulation agent.

Wei 2016

Design not relevant: retrospective cohort study.

Weisman 1989

Not an RCT.

Yokota 2006

Not an RCT.

Yoshida 2005

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

Youssef 2017

Not relevant: compared mild vs standard stimulation (with pretreatment in the mild group).

Zhao 2008

Not an RCT. Retrospective study.

ART: assisted reproductive technique; COCP: combined oral contraceptive pill; OCP: oral contraceptive pill; GnRH: gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone; RCT: randomised controlled trial.

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy Show forest plot

8

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

1.1 COCP + antagonist (Ant) vs Ant

6

1335

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.58, 0.95]

1.2 COCP + Ant vs agonist (Ag)

4

724

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.64, 1.25]

1.3 COCP + Ant vs Ant, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.71 [0.61, 4.79]

1.4 COCP + Ant vs Ag, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.43, 2.98]

2 Pregnancy loss Show forest plot

8

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

2.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

5

868

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.82, 2.26]

2.2 COCP + Ant vs Ag

5

780

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.22, 0.72]

2.3 COCP + Ant vs Ant, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.05 [0.18, 23.59]

2.4 COCP + Ant vs Ag, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.13, 7.47]

3 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

8

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

3.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

5

740

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.63, 1.15]

3.2 COCP + Ant vs Ag

4

546

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.59, 1.20]

3.3 COCP + Ant vs Ant, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.85 [0.69, 4.97]

3.4 COCP + Ant vs Ag, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.44, 2.83]

4 Multiple pregnancy rate Show forest plot

5

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy rate.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy rate.

4.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

2

125

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.21 [0.53, 9.26]

4.2 COCP + Ant vs Ag

4

546

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.85, 2.19]

4.3 COCP + Ant vs Ant, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.36, 12.24]

4.4 COCP + Ant vs Ag, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.37 [0.29, 6.56]

5 Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 5 Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 5 Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate.

5.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

2

642

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.28, 3.40]

5.2 COCP + Ant vs Ag

2

290

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.20, 1.96]

6 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 6 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 6 Number of oocytes retrieved.

7 Days of gonadotrophin treatment Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 7 Days of gonadotrophin treatment.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 7 Days of gonadotrophin treatment.

7.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

6

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 COCP + Ant vs Ag

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.3 COCP + Ant vs Ant, low response

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.4 COCP + Ant vs Ag, low response

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Amount of gonadotrophins administered Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 8 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 8 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

8.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

7

1275

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

190.10 [134.91, 245.28]

8.2 COCP + Ant vs Ag

3

496

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

9.96 [‐104.09, 124.02]

8.3 COCP + Ant vs Ant, low response

1

80

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

20.0 [‐165.39, 205.39]

8.4 COCP + Ant vs Ag, low response

1

80

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐349.0 [‐537.92, ‐160.08]

9 Ovarian cyst formation rate Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 9 Ovarian cyst formation rate.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 9 Ovarian cyst formation rate.

9.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.08, 2.75]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

1.1 Progestogen (Prog) + agonist (Ag) vs Ag

2

222

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.35 [0.69, 2.65]

1.2 Prog + antagonist (Ant) vs Ant

1

47

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.18, 2.54]

1.3 Prog + gonadotrophin (Gon) vs Gon

1

42

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.09, 4.23]

2 Pregnancy loss Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

2.1 Prog + Ag vs Ag

2

222

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.26 [0.67, 7.55]

2.2 Prog + Ant vs Ant

1

47

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.06, 2.09]

2.3 Prog + Gon vs Gon

1

42

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.06, 17.12]

3 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

5

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

3.1 Prog + Ag vs Ag

3

374

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.99 [1.20, 3.28]

3.2 Prog + Ant vs Ant

1

47

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.16, 1.71]

3.3 Prog + Gon vs Gon

1

42

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.14, 3.64]

4 Multiple pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy rate.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy rate.

4.1 Prog + Ant vs Ant

1

47

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.06, 17.76]

5 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 5 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 5 Number of oocytes retrieved.

5.1 Prog + Ag vs Ag

2

222

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.52 [‐2.07, 1.02]

5.2 Prog + Ant vs Ant

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.70 [‐0.98, 6.38]

5.3 Prog + Gon vs Gon

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.57, 0.57]

6 Days of gonadotrophin treatment Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 6 Days of gonadotrophin treatment.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 6 Days of gonadotrophin treatment.

6.1 Prog + Ag vs Ag

2

222

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.30, 0.52]

7 Amount of gonadotrophins administered Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 7 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 7 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

7.1 Prog + Ant vs Ant

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

276.0 [‐75.53, 627.53]

8 Ovarian cyst formation rate Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 8 Ovarian cyst formation rate.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 8 Ovarian cyst formation rate.

8.1 Prog + Ag vs Ag

3

374

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.16 [0.08, 0.32]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

1.1 Oestrogen (Oestr) + antagonist (Ant) vs Ant

2

502

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.53, 1.17]

1.2 Oestr + Ant vs agonist (Ag)

2

242

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.51, 1.50]

2 Pregnancy loss Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

2.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ant

1

49

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.16 [0.02, 1.47]

2.2 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

1

220

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.59 [0.62, 4.06]

3 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

6

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

3.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ant

4

688

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.66, 1.24]

3.2 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

2

242

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.45, 1.27]

4 Multiple pregnancies Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancies.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancies.

4.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

1

22

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.24 [0.09, 53.59]

5 Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 5 Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 5 Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate.

5.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

1

220

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.54 [0.25, 9.42]

6 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 6 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 6 Number of oocytes retrieved.

6.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ant

2

139

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.23 [0.71, 3.75]

6.2 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [‐4.47, 5.27]

7 Days of gonadotrophin treatment Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 7 Days of gonadotrophin treatment.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 7 Days of gonadotrophin treatment.

7.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ant

2

529

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.58, 1.08]

7.2 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.5 [‐4.07, ‐0.93]

8 Amount of gonadotrophins administered Show forest plot

5

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 8 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 8 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

8.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ant

4

668

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

168.35 [111.53, 225.17]

8.2 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐16.0 [‐470.12, 438.12]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 4. Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

1.1 COCP + antagonist (Ant) vs progestogen (Prog) + Ant

1

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.6 [0.12, 2.89]

2 Pregnancy loss Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

2.1 COCP + Ant vs Prog + Ant

1

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.14, 8.64]

3 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

3.1 COCP + Ant vs Prog + Ant

1

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.19, 2.73]

4 Multiple pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy rate.

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy rate.

4.1 COCP + Ant vs Prog + Ant

1

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.32 [0.19, 27.59]

5 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 5 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 5 Number of oocytes retrieved.

5.1 COCP + Ant vs Prog + Ant

1

44

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [‐3.24, 6.04]

6 Amount of gonadotrophins administered Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 6 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 6 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

6.1 COCP + Ant vs Prog + Ant

1

44

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

164.0 [‐249.03, 577.03]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 5. Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

1.1 COCP + antagonist (Ant) vs Oestr + Ant

2

146

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.54, 2.29]

1.2 COCP + agonist (Ag) vs Oestr + Ant

1

25

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [0.01, 0.79]

2 Pregnancy loss Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

2.1 COCP + Ag vs Oestr + Ant

1

25

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.06, 19.63]

3 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

3.1 COCP + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

2

146

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.19 [0.60, 2.37]

3.2 COCP + Ag vs Oestr + Ant

1

25

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.02, 0.82]

4 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 4 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 4 Number of oocytes retrieved.

4.1 COCP + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

1

46

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [‐3.59, 5.39]

5 Days of gonadotropin treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 5 Days of gonadotropin treatment.

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 5 Days of gonadotropin treatment.

5.1 COCP + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

1

100

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐1.23, 0.03]

6 Amount of gonadotrophins administered Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 6 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 6 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

6.1 COCP + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

2

146

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

181.56 [‐344.73, 707.86]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 6. Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

1.1 Prog + antagonist (Ant) vs Oestr + Ant

1

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.04 [0.43, 9.70]

2 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.

2.1 Prog + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

1

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.30 [0.57, 9.22]

3 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 3 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 3 Number of oocytes retrieved.

3.1 Prog + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.5 [‐4.55, 3.55]

4 Amount of gonadotrophins administered Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 4 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 4 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

4.1 Prog + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

310.0 [‐32.30, 652.30]

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Study PRISMA flow chart
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Study PRISMA flow chart

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (OCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), outcome: 1.1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (OCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), outcome: 1.1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), outcome: 1.2 Pregnancy loss.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), outcome: 1.2 Pregnancy loss.

Forest plot of comparison: 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), outcome: 3.1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison: 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), outcome: 3.1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Forest plot of comparison: 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), outcome: 3.2 Pregnancy loss.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 7

Forest plot of comparison: 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), outcome: 3.2 Pregnancy loss.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy rate.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 5 Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 5 Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 6 Number of oocytes retrieved.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 6 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 7 Days of gonadotrophin treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 7 Days of gonadotrophin treatment.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 8 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 8 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 9 Ovarian cyst formation rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 9 Ovarian cyst formation rate.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy rate.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 5 Number of oocytes retrieved.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 5 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 6 Days of gonadotrophin treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 6 Days of gonadotrophin treatment.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 7 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 7 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 8 Ovarian cyst formation rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 8 Ovarian cyst formation rate.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancies.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancies.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 5 Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 5 Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 6 Number of oocytes retrieved.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 6 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 7 Days of gonadotrophin treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 7 Days of gonadotrophin treatment.

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 8 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx), Outcome 8 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 4 Multiple pregnancy rate.

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 5 Number of oocytes retrieved.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 5 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 6 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen, Outcome 6 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 2 Pregnancy loss.

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 4 Number of oocytes retrieved.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 4 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 5 Days of gonadotropin treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 5 Days of gonadotropin treatment.

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 6 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 6 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 2 Clinical pregnancy rate.

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 3 Number of oocytes retrieved.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 3 Number of oocytes retrieved.

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 4 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr), Outcome 4 Amount of gonadotrophins administered.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Combined oral contraceptive pill compared to no pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

Combined oral contraceptive pill compared to no pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

Population: women undergoing ART

Settings: ART clinic

Intervention: COCP

Comparison: no pretreatment

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk1

Corresponding risk

No pretreatment

COCP

Live birth or ongoing pregnancy

(COCP + Ant vs Ant)

270 per 1000

215 per 1000
(177 to 260)

OR 0.74
(0.58 to 0.95)

1335
(6 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate2

Live birth or ongoing pregnancy

(COCP + Ant vs Ag)

296 per 1000

273 per 1000
(212 to 345)

OR 0.89
(0.64 to 1.25)

724
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate3

Pregnancy loss

(COCP + Ant vs Ant)

64 per 1000

85 per 1000
(53 to 134)

OR 1.36
(0.82 to 2.26)

868
(5 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate3

Pregnancy loss

(COCP + Ant vs Ag)

103 per 1000

44 per 1000
(25 to 76)

OR 0.40
(0.22 to 0.72)

780
(5 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate3

Multiple pregnancy rate (COCP + Ant vs Ant)

47 per 1000

98 per 1000
(25 to 313)

OR 2.21
(0.53 to 9.26)

125
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low4

Multiple pregnancy rate (COCP + Ant vs Ag)

147 per 1000

189 per 1000
(127 to 273)

OR 1.36
(0.85 to 2.19)

546
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate3

OHSS rate

(COCP + Ant vs Ant)

16 per 1000

16 per 1000

(4 to 52)

OR 0.98

(0.28 to 3.40)

642

(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low4

OHSS rate

(COCP + Ant vs Ag)

55 per 1000

35 per 1000

(11 to 102)

OR 0.63

(0.20 to 1.96)

290

(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low4

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
Ag: agonist; Ant: antagonist; ART: assisted reproductive techniques; COCP: combined oral contraceptive pill; CI: confidence interval; OHSS: ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; OR: odds ratio.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Mean baseline risk of control group.
2 Downgraded one level for serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of sequence generation and allocation concealment.
3 Downgraded one level for serious imprecision: effect estimate with wide confidence intervals or low event rate (or both).
4 Downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision: small sample size or very low event rate, and effect estimate with wide confidence intervals.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Combined oral contraceptive pill compared to no pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques
Summary of findings 2. Progestogen compared to placebo or no pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

Progestogen compared to placebo or no pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

Patient or population: ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing ART

Settings:

Intervention: progestogen

Comparison: placebo or no pretreatment

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk1

Corresponding risk

Placebo or no pretreatment

Prog

Live birth or ongoing pregnancy

(Prog + Ag vs Ag)

170 per 1000

217 per 1000
(124 to 352)

OR 1.35
(0.69 to 2.65)

222
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low2

Live birth or ongoing pregnancy (Prog + Ant vs Ant)

292 per 1000

217 per 1000
(69 to 512)

OR 0.67
(0.18 to 2.54)

47
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low2

Pregnancy loss

(Prog + Ag vs Ag)

36 per 1000

78 per 1000
(24 to 220)

OR 2.26
(0.67 to 7.55)

222
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low2

Pregnancy loss

(Prog + Ant vs Ant)

208 per 1000

86 per 1000
(16 to 354)

OR 0.36
(0.06 to 2.09)

47
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low2

Multiple pregnancy rate

(Prog + Ag vs Ag)

No data available

Multiple pregnancy rate

(Prog + Ant vs Ant)

42 per 1000

44 per 1000
(3 to 438)

OR 1.05
(0.06 to 17.76)

47
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low2

OHSS rate

(Prog + Ag vs Ag)

No data available

OHSS rate

(Prog + Ant vs Ant)

No data available

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
Ag: agonist; Ant: antagonist; ART: assisted reproductive techniques; CI: confidence interval; OHSS: ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; OR: odds ratio; Prog: progestogen.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Mean baseline risk of control group.
2 Downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision: small sample size and effect estimate with wide confidence intervals.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. Progestogen compared to placebo or no pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques
Summary of findings 3. Oestrogen compared to no pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

Oestrogencompared to no pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

Patient or population: ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing ART

Settings:

Intervention: oestrogen

Comparison: no pretreatment

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk1

Corresponding risk

No pretreatment

Oestr

Live birth or ongoing pregnancy

(Oestr + Ant vs Ant)

299 per 1000

252 per 1000
(184 to 333)

OR 0.79
(0.53 to 1.17)

502
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate2

Live birth or ongoing pregnancy

(Oestr + Ant vs Ag)

350 per 1000

322 per 1000
(215 to 447)

OR 0.88
(0.51 to 1.5)

242
(2 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low3,4

Pregnancy loss

(Oestr + Ant vs Ant)

208 per 1000

40 per 1000
(5 to 279)

OR 0.16
(0.02 to 1.47)

49
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low3,4

Pregnancy loss

(Oestr + Ant vs Ag)

72 per 1000

110 per 1000
(46 to 240)

OR 1.59
(0.62 to 4.06)

220
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low3,4

Multiple pregnancy rate

(Oestr + Ant vs Ant)

No data available

Multiple pregnancy rate

(Oestr + Ant vs Ag)

Not calculable ‐ see comment

OR 2.24
(0.09 to 53.59)

22
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low3,4

Only 2 events (both in oestrogen group)

OHSS rate

(Oestr + Ant vs Ant)

No data available

OHSS rate

(Oestr + Ant vs Ag)

18 per 1000

27 per 1000

(5 to 147)

OR 1.54

(0.25 to 9.42)

220

(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low3,4

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
Ag: agonist; Ant: antagonist; ART: assisted reproductive techniques; CI: confidence interval; Oestr: oestrogen; OHSS: ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; OR: odds ratio.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Mean baseline risk of control group.
2 Downgraded one level for serious imprecision: effect estimate with wide confidence intervals.
3 Downgraded one level for serious risk of bias due to poor reporting on allocation concealment or high attrition (or both).
4 Downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision: small sample size and effect estimate with wide confidence intervals.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 3. Oestrogen compared to no pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques
Comparison 1. Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy Show forest plot

8

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 COCP + antagonist (Ant) vs Ant

6

1335

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.58, 0.95]

1.2 COCP + Ant vs agonist (Ag)

4

724

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.64, 1.25]

1.3 COCP + Ant vs Ant, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.71 [0.61, 4.79]

1.4 COCP + Ant vs Ag, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.43, 2.98]

2 Pregnancy loss Show forest plot

8

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

5

868

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.82, 2.26]

2.2 COCP + Ant vs Ag

5

780

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.22, 0.72]

2.3 COCP + Ant vs Ant, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.05 [0.18, 23.59]

2.4 COCP + Ant vs Ag, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.13, 7.47]

3 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

8

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

5

740

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.63, 1.15]

3.2 COCP + Ant vs Ag

4

546

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.59, 1.20]

3.3 COCP + Ant vs Ant, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.85 [0.69, 4.97]

3.4 COCP + Ant vs Ag, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.44, 2.83]

4 Multiple pregnancy rate Show forest plot

5

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

2

125

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.21 [0.53, 9.26]

4.2 COCP + Ant vs Ag

4

546

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.85, 2.19]

4.3 COCP + Ant vs Ant, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.36, 12.24]

4.4 COCP + Ant vs Ag, low response

1

80

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.37 [0.29, 6.56]

5 Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

2

642

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.28, 3.40]

5.2 COCP + Ant vs Ag

2

290

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.20, 1.96]

6 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7 Days of gonadotrophin treatment Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

6

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.2 COCP + Ant vs Ag

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.3 COCP + Ant vs Ant, low response

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7.4 COCP + Ant vs Ag, low response

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Amount of gonadotrophins administered Show forest plot

8

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

7

1275

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

190.10 [134.91, 245.28]

8.2 COCP + Ant vs Ag

3

496

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

9.96 [‐104.09, 124.02]

8.3 COCP + Ant vs Ant, low response

1

80

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

20.0 [‐165.39, 205.39]

8.4 COCP + Ant vs Ag, low response

1

80

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐349.0 [‐537.92, ‐160.08]

9 Ovarian cyst formation rate Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 COCP + Ant vs Ant

1

64

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.08, 2.75]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus no pretreatment (Rx)
Comparison 2. Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Progestogen (Prog) + agonist (Ag) vs Ag

2

222

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.35 [0.69, 2.65]

1.2 Prog + antagonist (Ant) vs Ant

1

47

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.18, 2.54]

1.3 Prog + gonadotrophin (Gon) vs Gon

1

42

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.09, 4.23]

2 Pregnancy loss Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Prog + Ag vs Ag

2

222

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.26 [0.67, 7.55]

2.2 Prog + Ant vs Ant

1

47

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.06, 2.09]

2.3 Prog + Gon vs Gon

1

42

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.06, 17.12]

3 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

5

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Prog + Ag vs Ag

3

374

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.99 [1.20, 3.28]

3.2 Prog + Ant vs Ant

1

47

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.16, 1.71]

3.3 Prog + Gon vs Gon

1

42

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.14, 3.64]

4 Multiple pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Prog + Ant vs Ant

1

47

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.06, 17.76]

5 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Prog + Ag vs Ag

2

222

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.52 [‐2.07, 1.02]

5.2 Prog + Ant vs Ant

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.70 [‐0.98, 6.38]

5.3 Prog + Gon vs Gon

1

29

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.57, 0.57]

6 Days of gonadotrophin treatment Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Prog + Ag vs Ag

2

222

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.30, 0.52]

7 Amount of gonadotrophins administered Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Prog + Ant vs Ant

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

276.0 [‐75.53, 627.53]

8 Ovarian cyst formation rate Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Prog + Ag vs Ag

3

374

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.16 [0.08, 0.32]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Progestogen versus placebo/no pretreatment (Rx)
Comparison 3. Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy Show forest plot

4

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Oestrogen (Oestr) + antagonist (Ant) vs Ant

2

502

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.53, 1.17]

1.2 Oestr + Ant vs agonist (Ag)

2

242

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.51, 1.50]

2 Pregnancy loss Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ant

1

49

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.16 [0.02, 1.47]

2.2 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

1

220

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.59 [0.62, 4.06]

3 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

6

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ant

4

688

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.66, 1.24]

3.2 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

2

242

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.45, 1.27]

4 Multiple pregnancies Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

1

22

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.24 [0.09, 53.59]

5 Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

1

220

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.54 [0.25, 9.42]

6 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ant

2

139

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.23 [0.71, 3.75]

6.2 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [‐4.47, 5.27]

7 Days of gonadotrophin treatment Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ant

2

529

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.58, 1.08]

7.2 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.5 [‐4.07, ‐0.93]

8 Amount of gonadotrophins administered Show forest plot

5

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 Oestr + Ant vs Ant

4

668

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

168.35 [111.53, 225.17]

8.2 Oestr + Ant vs Ag

1

22

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐16.0 [‐470.12, 438.12]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Oestrogen versus no pretreatment (Rx)
Comparison 4. Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 COCP + antagonist (Ant) vs progestogen (Prog) + Ant

1

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.6 [0.12, 2.89]

2 Pregnancy loss Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 COCP + Ant vs Prog + Ant

1

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.14, 8.64]

3 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 COCP + Ant vs Prog + Ant

1

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.19, 2.73]

4 Multiple pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 COCP + Ant vs Prog + Ant

1

44

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.32 [0.19, 27.59]

5 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 COCP + Ant vs Prog + Ant

1

44

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [‐3.24, 6.04]

6 Amount of gonadotrophins administered Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 COCP + Ant vs Prog + Ant

1

44

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

164.0 [‐249.03, 577.03]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus progestogen
Comparison 5. Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 COCP + antagonist (Ant) vs Oestr + Ant

2

146

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.54, 2.29]

1.2 COCP + agonist (Ag) vs Oestr + Ant

1

25

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [0.01, 0.79]

2 Pregnancy loss Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 COCP + Ag vs Oestr + Ant

1

25

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.06, 19.63]

3 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

3

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 COCP + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

2

146

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.19 [0.60, 2.37]

3.2 COCP + Ag vs Oestr + Ant

1

25

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.02, 0.82]

4 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 COCP + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

1

46

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [‐3.59, 5.39]

5 Days of gonadotropin treatment Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 COCP + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

1

100

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐1.23, 0.03]

6 Amount of gonadotrophins administered Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 COCP + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

2

146

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

181.56 [‐344.73, 707.86]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) versus oestrogen (Oestr)
Comparison 6. Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Prog + antagonist (Ant) vs Oestr + Ant

1

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.04 [0.43, 9.70]

2 Clinical pregnancy rate Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Prog + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

1

48

Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.30 [0.57, 9.22]

3 Number of oocytes retrieved Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Prog + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.5 [‐4.55, 3.55]

4 Amount of gonadotrophins administered Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Prog + Ant vs Oestr + Ant

1

48

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

310.0 [‐32.30, 652.30]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Progestogen (Prog) versus oestrogen (Oestr)