Comparison 2. Acupuncture on and around the day of ET versus control.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Live Birth	8	2505	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.22 [0.87, 1.70]
1.1 Acupuncture versus Control (no sham/needling)	3	849	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.55 [1.14, 2.12]
1.2 Acupuncture versus Control (sham/needling)	5	1656	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.67, 1.58]
2 Ongoing pregnancy	10	2807	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.10 [0.80, 1.52]
2.1 Acupuncture versus Control (no sham/needling)	4	924	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.08 [0.57, 2.07]
2.2 Acupuncture versus Control (sham/needling)	6	1883	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.10 [0.74, 1.65]
3 Clinical pregnancy	14	3632	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.11 [0.87, 1.42]
3.1 Acupuncture versus Control (no sham/needling)	7	1589	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.21 [0.84, 1.73]
3.2 Acupuncture versus Control (sham/needling)	7	2043	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.04 [0.74, 1.46]
4 Miscarriage	6	616	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.10 [0.73, 1.67]
4.1 Acupuncture versus Control (no sham/needling)	2	245	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.20 [0.57, 2.49]
4.2 Acupuncture versus Control (sham/needling)	4	371	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.64, 1.76]
5 Multiple gestation	2	795	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.32 [0.74, 2.35]
5.1 Acupuncture versus Control (sham/needling)	2	795	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.32 [0.74, 2.35]