Summary of findings 4. hCG compared to GnRH‐a for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples.
| hCG compared to GnRH‐a for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples | ||||||
| Population: women undergoing intrauterine insemination Intervention: hCG Comparison: GnRH‐a | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| GnRH‐a | HCG | |||||
| Live birth rate per couple | 200 per 1000 | 206 per 1000 (95 to 390) | OR 1.04 (0.42 to 2.56) | 104 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |
| Pregnancy rate per couple | 315 per 1000 | 344 per 1000 (225 to 489) | OR 1.14 (0.63 to 2.08) | 206 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |
| Multiple pregnancy rate per pregnancy | 33 per 1000 | 5 per 1000 (1 to 45) | OR 0.15 (0.02 to 1.38) | 74 (4 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3 | |
| Miscarriage rate per pregnancy | 124 per 1000 | 196 per 1000 (64 to 467) | OR 1.72 (0.48 to 6.2) | 74 (4 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3 | |
| OHSS per cycle | 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | OR 2.27 (0.65 to 7.91) | 456 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |
| *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 allocation concealment were unclear. 2There was serious imprecision: findings were compatible with substantial benefit in either group, or with no effect.
3There was very serious imprecision, with very few events and wide confidence intervals.