Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Analog hormon pelepasan gonadotrofin adjuvan untuk pencegahan kegagalan ovari pramatang akibat kemoterapi dikalangan wanita pra‐menopaus

Appendices

Appendix 1. CENTRAL search strategy

#1   MeSH descriptor Ovarian Failure, Premature explode all trees
#2   ovar* and (failure or function or damage)
#3   MeSH descriptor Fertility explode all trees
#4   fertility
#5   (#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4)
#6   chemotherap*
#7   gonadal toxicity or gonadotoxic*
#8   MeSH descriptor Antineoplastic Agents explode all trees
#9   MeSH descriptor Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols explode all trees
#10  (#6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9)
#11  MeSH descriptor Gonadotropin‐Releasing Hormone explode all trees
#12  GnRH
#13  gonadotropin‐releasing hormone
#14  LHRH
#15  luteinizing‐hormone releasing hormone
#16  (#11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15)
#17  (#5 AND #10 AND #16) 

Appendix 2. MEDLINE OVID search strategy

1   exp Ovarian Failure, Premature/
2   (ovar* and (failure or function or damage)).mp.
3   exp Fertility/
4   fertility.mp.
5   1 or 2 or 3 or 4
6   chemotherap*.mp.
7   (gonadal toxicity or gonadotoxic*).mp.
8   exp Antineoplastic Agents/
9   exp Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/
10 6 or 7 or 8 or 9
11 exp Gonadotropin‐Releasing Hormone/
12 GnRH.mp.
13 gonadotropin‐releasing hormone.mp.
14 LHRH.mp.
15 luteinizing‐hormone releasing hormone.mp.
16 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15
17 5 and 10 and 16
18 "randomized controlled trial".pt.
19 "controlled clinical trial".pt.
20 randomized.ab.
21 placebo.ab.
22 drug therapy.fs.
23 randomly.ab.
24 trial.ab.
25 groups.ab.
26 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25
27 17 and 26
28 Animals/
29 Humans/
30 28 not (28 and 29)
31 27 not 30

Key: mp=title, original title, abstract, name of substance word, subject heading word
        ab=abstract
        fs=floating subheading

Appendix 3. Embase OVID search strategy

1   exp premature ovarian failure/
2   (ovar* and (failure or function or damage)).mp.
3   exp fertility/
4   fertility.mp.
5   1 or 2 or 3 or 4
6   exp chemotherapy/ or chemotherap*.mp.
7   (gonadal toxicity or gonadotoxic*).mp.
8   exp antineoplastic agent/
9   6 or 7 or 8
10 exp gonadorelin/
11 GnRH.mp.
12 gonadotropin‐releasing hormone.mp.
13 LHRH.mp.
14 luteinizing‐hormone releasing hormone.mp.
15 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14
16 5 and 9 and 15
17 exp controlled clinical trial/
18 randomized.ab.
19 placebo.ab.
20 dt.fs.
21 randomly.ab.
22 trial.ab.
23 groups.ab.
24 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23
25 16 and 24

key:
mp=title, abstract, subject headings, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer name
ab=abstract
fs=floating subheading

Appendix 4. CBM search strategy

#1. 卵巢早衰 ti.
#2. 卵巢早衰 tx.
#3. 卵巢早衰 ab.
#4. 化疗 ti.
#5. 化疗 tx.
#6. 化疗 ab.
#7. 促性腺激素释放激素 ti.
#8. 促性腺激素释放激素 tx.
#9. 促性腺激素释放激素 ab.
#10. OR 1‐3
#11 OR 4‐5
#12 OR 6‐9
#13 10 AND 11 AND 12

Appendix 5. Data extraction form items

  • Review ID

  • Study ID

  • Reference ID

  • Person extracting data

  • Date of date extraction

  • Year of study publication

  • Title

  • Author

  • Type of study design

  • Unit of randomisation

  • Describe setting

  • Funding source

  • Inclusion criteria

  • Exclusion criteria

  • Experimental intervention

  • Control/comparison intervention

  • Outcomes

  • Adequate sequence generation: was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

  • Allocation concealment: was allocation concealment adequate?

  • Blinding: was knowledge of the allocated intervention adequately prevented during the study?

  • Incomplete outcome  data addressed: were complete outcome data adequately addressed?

  • Free of selective reporting bias: are reports of study free of suggestions of selective reporting bias?

  • Free of other bias: was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at high risk of bias?

  • Outcome measures

  • Very brief summary of study authors' main findings/conclusions

  • Reasons for exclusion

Appendix 6. Risk of bias criteria

Generation of allocation sequence

  • Yes ‐ adequate methods applied e.g. random number tables, computer‐generated random numbers, coin tossing, or card shuffling

  • Unclear ‐ no information was provided

  • No ‐ other methods of allocation that are potentially biased

Allocation concealment

  • Yes ‐ adequate measures such as central randomisation; serially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes; or another description that contained convincing elements of concealment

  • Unclear ‐ information unavailable

  • No ‐ inadequate measures that do not fall into one of the categories under the 'adequate methods' category

Blinding

  • Blinding of women (yes, no, or unclear)

  • Blinding of caregivers (yes, no, or unclear)

  • Blinding of outcome assessment (yes, no, or unclear)

Incomplete outcome data

  • Yes ‐ clearly described loss of participants to follow‐up at each data collection point and exclusion of participants after randomisation

  • Unclear ‐ no information was provided

  • No ‐ unreported/missing numbers of losses at follow‐up, or no reasons for missing data provided

Free of selective reporting bias

  • Yes ‐ all of the study's pre‐specified outcomes and all expected outcomes of interest to the review have been reported

  • Unclear ‐ information unavailable

  • No ‐ incomplete reporting of study's pre‐specified outcomes; one or more reported primary outcomes were not pre‐specified; outcomes of interest were reported incompletely and thus could not be used; study failed to include results of a key outcome that would have been expected to have been reported

Free of other bias

We described for each included study any important concerns we had about other possible sources of bias, for example, the baseline balance.

  • Yes ‐ no evidence of bias from other sources

  • Unclear ‐ insufficient information to permit judgement of adequacy or otherwise of other forms of bias

  • No ‐ potential bias present from other sources (e.g. early stopping of trial, fraudulent activity, extreme baseline imbalance, or bias related to specific study design)

Flow diagram

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Flow diagram

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

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

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

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

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

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

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 1: Menstruation recovery or maintenance

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 1: Menstruation recovery or maintenance

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 2: Premature ovarian failure (POF)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 2: Premature ovarian failure (POF)

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 3: Pregnancy

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 3: Pregnancy

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 4: Ovulation

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 4: Ovulation

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 5: Antral follicle count

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 5: Antral follicle count

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 6: FSH (mUI/L)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 6: FSH (mUI/L)

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 7: FSH < 20 mIU/mL

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 7: FSH < 20 mIU/mL

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 8: LH (mUI/L)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 8: LH (mUI/L)

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 9: LH < 20 mIU/L

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 9: LH < 20 mIU/L

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 10: AMH (pmol/L)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 10: AMH (pmol/L)

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 11: Inhibin B

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 11: Inhibin B

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 12: Estradiol

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 12: Estradiol

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 13: Estradiol > 20 pg/mL

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 13: Estradiol > 20 pg/mL

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 14: Adverse effects: hot flush

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 14: Adverse effects: hot flush

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 15: Adverse effect: vaginal dryness

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 15: Adverse effect: vaginal dryness

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 16: Adverse effect: urogenital symptoms

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 16: Adverse effect: urogenital symptoms

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 17: Adverse effect: sweating

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 17: Adverse effect: sweating

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 18: Adverse effect: headache

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 18: Adverse effect: headache

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 19: Adverse effect: mood swings

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 19: Adverse effect: mood swings

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 20: Adverse effect: fatigue

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 20: Adverse effect: fatigue

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 21: Adverse effect: joint pain

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 21: Adverse effect: joint pain

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 22: Adverse effect: muscle pain

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 22: Adverse effect: muscle pain

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 23: Adverse effect: decrease in lipid

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 23: Adverse effect: decrease in lipid

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 24: Adverse effect: thromboembolism

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 24: Adverse effect: thromboembolism

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 25: Adverse effect: agitation

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.25

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 25: Adverse effect: agitation

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 26: Adverse effect: anxiety

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.26

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 26: Adverse effect: anxiety

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 27: Adverse effect: depression

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.27

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 27: Adverse effect: depression

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 28: Adverse effect: insomnia

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.28

Comparison 1: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 28: Adverse effect: insomnia

Comparison 2: Agonist‐antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 1: Menstruation recovery or maintenance

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2: Agonist‐antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 1: Menstruation recovery or maintenance

Comparison 2: Agonist‐antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 2: Pregnancy

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2: Agonist‐antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, Outcome 2: Pregnancy

Summary of findings 1. GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced premature ovarian failure in premenopausal women

GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced premature ovarian failure in premenopausal women

Patient or population: premenopausal women with malignant conditions, receiving GnRH agonist before or in parallel to chemotherapy
Settings: hospital
Intervention: GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy

Comparison: chemotherapy alone

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control: chemotherapy alone

GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy

Menstruation recovery or maintenance:

Follow‐up ≤ 12 months

Study population

RR 1.60
(1.14 to 2.24)

460
(5 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,2

498 per 1000

796 per 1000
(567 to 1000)

Moderate

496 per 1000

794 per 1000
(565 to 1000)

Menstruation recovery or maintenance:

Follow‐up > 12 months

Study population

RR 1.08
(0.95 to 1.22)

869

(8 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low3,4

654 per 1000

706 per 1000
(621 to 798)

Moderate

681 per 1000

735 per 1000
(647 to 831)

Premature ovarian failure

Study population

RR 0.44
(0.31 to 0.61)

780
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Moderate5

We defined premature ovarian failure as amenorrhoea after chemotherapy with postmenopausal FSH levels.
Follow‐up periods were ≥ 12 months

253 per 1000

111 per 1000
(79 to 155)

Moderate

249 per 1000

110 per 1000
(77 to 152)

Pregnancy

Study population

RR 1.59
(0.93 to 2.70)

703
(7 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low6,7

Follow‐up periods were ≥ 18 months

63 per 1000

101 per 1000
(59 to 171)

Moderate

95 per 1000

151 per 1000
(88 to 257)

Ovulation

Study population

RR 2.47

(1.43 to 4.26)

95

(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low8,9

Follow‐up periods ranged from 8 months to > 3 years

250 per 1000

618 per 1000

(357 to 1000)

Moderate

239 per 1000

590 per 1000

(342 to 1000)

Adverse effects: hot flush

Study population

RR 1.49
(0.16 to 13.60)

731
(4 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low10,11,12

Follow‐up periods ranged from 1 year to > 7 years

390 per 1000

580 per 1000
(62 to 1000)

Moderate

245 per 1000

365 per 1000
(39 to 1000)

Adverse effects: vaginal dryness

Study population

RR 1.18
(0.68 to 2.04)

488
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate13

Follow‐up periods ranged from 5 months to > 7 years

88 per 1000

104 per 1000
(60 to 180)

Moderate

88 per 1000

104 per 1000
(60 to 180)

*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).
CI: confidence interval; FSH: follicle‐stimulating hormone; RR: risk ratio

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

1Downgraded by one level due to concern about risk of bias (unclear random sequence generation in three out of five studies, unclear allocation concealment in two studies, unclear blinding in four studies, no blinding in one study, and selective reporting in one study).
2Downgraded one level due to substantial heterogeneity among results of included studies (I2= 79%).
3Downgraded by one level due to concern about risk of bias (unclear random sequence generation in four out of eight studies, unclear allocation concealment in five studies, unclear blinding in six studies, no blinding in two studies, selective reporting in two studies, and other biases in two studies).
4Downgraded one level due to substantial heterogeneity among results of included studies (I2= 56%).
5Downgraded by one level due to concern about risk of bias (unclear random sequence generation and unclear allocation concealment in one out of four studies, unclear blinding in all studies, and other bias in one study).
6Downgraded by one level due to concern about risk of bias (unclear random sequence generation in four out of seven studies, unclear allocation concealment in five studies, unclear blinding in all studies, incomplete outcome data in one study, selective reporting in two studies and other bias in four studies).
7Downgraded by one level due to concern about indirectness (insufficient data about the participants' intention of pregnancy).
8Downgraded by one level due to concern about risk of bias (unclear allocation concealment in one out of two studies, unclear random sequence generation and unclear blinding in all studies, and other bias in one study).
9Downgraded by one level due to imprecision (small sample size).
10Downgraded by one level due to concern about risk of bias (unclear random sequence generation, allocation concealment and other bias in three out of four studies; unclear blinding in all studies).
11Downgraded one level due to considerable heterogeneity among results of included studies (I2= 99%).
12Downgraded by one level due to imprecision (wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect).
13Downgraded by one level due to concern about risk of bias (unclear random sequence generation and unclear allocation concealment in one out of two studies, unclear blinding in both two studies, and other bias in one study).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 1. GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced premature ovarian failure in premenopausal women
Summary of findings 2. GnRH agonist‐antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced premature ovarian failure in premenopausal women

GnRH agonist‐antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the prevention of chemotherapy induced premature ovarian failure in premenopausal women

Patient or population: premenopausal women with malignant conditions, receiving GnRH agonist before or in parallel to chemotherapy
Settings: hospital
Intervention: GnRH agonist‐antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy

Comparison: chemotherapy alone

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control: chemotherapy alone

Agonist‐antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy

Menstruation recovery or maintenance:

Follow‐up ≤ 12 months

Study population

RR 1.00
(0.76 to 1.32)

50
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

800 per 1000

800 per 1000
(608 to 1000)

Moderate

800 per 1000

800 per 1000
(608 to 1000)

Menstruation recovery or maintenance:

Follow‐up > 12 months

Study population

RR 0.93
(0.56 to 1.55)

50
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

560 per 1000

521 per 1000
(314 to 868)

Moderate

560 per 1000

521 per 1000
(314 to 868)

Premature ovarian failure

Not estimable

0

No data.

We defined premature ovarian failure as amenorrhoea after chemotherapy with postmenopausal FSH levels

Pregnancy

Study population

RR 3.00
(0.13 to 70.30)

50
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low1,2

Follow‐up: 18 months

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Moderate

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Ovulation

Not estimable

0

No data

Adverse events

Not estimable

0

No data

*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).
CI: confidence interval; FSH: follicle‐stimulating hormone; RR: risk ratio

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

1 Downgraded by one level due to concern about risk of bias (unclear blinding, and high risk of selective reporting).
2 Downgraded by one level due to serious imprecision (single RCT with small sample size).

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. GnRH agonist‐antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced premature ovarian failure in premenopausal women
Table 1. Leonard 2017: amenorrhoea and premature ovarian failure in age subgroups

Age (years)

Percentage of women with amenorrhoea/POF

P value

Chemotherapy+GnRH agonist group

Chemotherapy group

Amenorrhoea

≤ 40

10%

25.4%

0.032

> 40

42.9%

54.2%

0.376

POF

≤ 40

2.6%

20.0%

0.038

> 40

42.3%

47.2%

0.798

POF: premature ovarian failure; GnRH: gonadotropin‐releasing hormone

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Leonard 2017: amenorrhoea and premature ovarian failure in age subgroups
Table 2. Karimi‐Zarchi 2014: menstruation recovery or maintenance at six months after chemotherapy in age subgroups

Age (years)

Number of participants with menstruation recovery or maintenance/total number of participants

RR

95% CI

P value

Chemotherapy+GnRH agonist group

Chemotherapy group

< 35

13/13

3/15

1.5

0.15 to 15.46

0.73

> 35

6/8

4/6

96.43

4.51 to 2059.53

0.003

GnRH: gonadotropin‐releasing hormone; CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Karimi‐Zarchi 2014: menstruation recovery or maintenance at six months after chemotherapy in age subgroups
Table 3. Song 2013: premature ovarian failure in age subgroups

Age (years)

Number of participants with POF/ total number of participants

RR

95% CI

P value

Chemotherapy+GnRH agonist group

Chemotherapy group

≤ 35

5/43

10/41

0.48

0.18 to 1.28

0.14

> 35

10/46

17/43

0.55

0.28 to 1.07

0.08

POF: premature ovarian failure; GnRH: gonadotropin‐releasing hormone; CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Song 2013: premature ovarian failure in age subgroups
Comparison 1. GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Menstruation recovery or maintenance Show forest plot

11

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1.1 Follow‐up time ≤ 12 months

5

460

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.60 [1.14, 2.24]

1.1.2 Follow‐up time > 12 months

8

869

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.95, 1.22]

1.2 Premature ovarian failure (POF) Show forest plot

4

780

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.31, 0.61]

1.3 Pregnancy Show forest plot

7

703

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.59 [0.93, 2.70]

1.4 Ovulation Show forest plot

2

95

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.47 [1.43, 4.26]

1.5 Antral follicle count Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.6 FSH (mUI/L) Show forest plot

2

71

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.26 [‐0.80, 1.31]

1.7 FSH < 20 mIU/mL Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.8 LH (mUI/L) Show forest plot

2

71

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.62 [‐1.28, 0.03]

1.9 LH < 20 mIU/L Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.10 AMH (pmol/L) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.11 Inhibin B Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.12 Estradiol Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.13 Estradiol > 20 pg/mL Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.14 Adverse effects: hot flush Show forest plot

4

731

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.49 [0.16, 13.60]

1.15 Adverse effect: vaginal dryness Show forest plot

2

488

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.68, 2.04]

1.16 Adverse effect: urogenital symptoms Show forest plot

2

243

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.37 [0.01, 448.16]

1.17 Adverse effect: sweating Show forest plot

2

488

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.61 [0.93, 2.80]

1.18 Adverse effect: headache Show forest plot

2

488

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.54 [0.54, 11.92]

1.19 Adverse effect: mood swings Show forest plot

3

517

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.98, 1.02]

1.20 Adverse effect: fatigue Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.21 Adverse effect: joint pain Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.22 Adverse effect: muscle pain Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.23 Adverse effect: decrease in lipid Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.24 Adverse effect: thromboembolism Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.25 Adverse effect: agitation Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.26 Adverse effect: anxiety Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.27 Adverse effect: depression Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.28 Adverse effect: insomnia Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. GnRH agonist plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone
Comparison 2. Agonist‐antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

2.1 Menstruation recovery or maintenance Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1.1 Follow‐up time ≤ 12 months

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.76, 1.32]

2.1.2 Follow‐up time > 12 months

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.56, 1.55]

2.2 Pregnancy Show forest plot

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.00 [0.13, 70.30]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Agonist‐antagonist cotreatment plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone