Summary of findings 2. u‐hCG compared to r‐hCG for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples.
| u‐hCG compared to r‐hCG for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples | ||||||
| Population: women undergoing intrauterine insemination Intervention: u‐hCG Comparison: r‐hCG | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| R‐hCG | U‐hCG | |||||
| Live birth rate per couple | 221 per 1000 | 249 per 1000 (162 to 365) | OR 1.17 (0.68 to 2.03) | 284 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |
| Pregnancy rate per couple | 261 per 1000 | 265 per 1000 (187 to 357) | OR 1.02 (0.65 to 1.57) | 409 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2,3 | |
| Multiple pregnancy rate per pregnancy | 184 per 1000 | 182 per 1000 (83 to 358) | OR 0.99 (0.4 to 2.47) | 109 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2,3 | |
| Miscarriage rate per pregnancy | 84 per 1000 | 50 per 1000 (12 to 185) | OR 0.57 (0.13 to 2.47) | 109 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,4 | |
| OHSS rate per cycle | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | 468 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate3 | There were no events in either study |
| *The basis for the assumed risk was the median control group risk across studies. 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; 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. | ||||||
1Methods used for random sequence generation and/or allocation concealment were unclear.
2There was serious imprecision: findings were compatible with substantial benefit in either group, or with no effect.
3One study did not report the method of allocation concealment used.
4There was very serious imprecision, with very few events and wide confidence intervals.