Dalal 2014

Methods	Single‐centre randomised controlled trial Computer‐based randomisation by independent research assistant Cabergoline vs coasting Setting: India
Participants	60 women undergoing IVF or ICSI cycles and at risk of developing OHSS, defined as the presence of preovulatory follicles ≥ 20 in both ovaries and the E2 level ≥ 2500 pg/mL Exclusion criteria: not stated Cabergoline group: 30 women Coasting group: 30 women
Interventions	Cabergoline group: cabergoline 0.5 mg/day orally from the day of hCG for 8 days Coasting group: gonadotropins were withheld (while GnRHa was maintained), until the serum level of E2 started to decline in each group. 1 woman needed ascites tapped, and the remaining 29 women received 6% HES infusion
Outcomes	Moderate and severe OHSS: classification not described but according to Golan (Golan 1989) criteria (from private correspondence with author) Severe OHSS (cabergoline group vs coasting group): 5/30 vs 4/30 Moderate OHSS: not stated Total OHSS: not stated Live birth rate: not stated Miscarriage rate (cabergoline group vs coasting group): 0/30 vs 2/30 Clinical pregnancy rate (defined as presence of gestational sac or cardiac activity 3 weeks after transfer) (cabergoline group vs coasting group): 8/30 vs 4/30 Multiple pregnancy rate (cabergoline group vs coasting group): 2/30 vs 0/30 Any other adverse effects of the treatment: cancelling of ET due to poor embryo quality (cabergoline group vs coasting group): 1/30 vs 1/30. Other adverse events not stated
Notes	Received draft of full‐text article in peer review currently per private email; additional information per private correspondence with first author. 58 women received fluid of 6% HES and the remaining included woman received an ascites tap instead of HES.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Use of randomisation software (www.randomizer.org/)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Independent research assistant allocated; concealment unclear
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding involved. The participants and clinicians were aware in which arm of the study they were
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No dropouts/loss of follow‐up in the 2 groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No exclusions (no live birth rated mentioned)
Other bias	High risk	OHSS identified/classification not described. 29 participants in both groups also received HES infusion, 1 participant from each group had ascites tap, unclear which participant was involved