Marrs 2003.

Methods	Prospective randomized, open‐label study, multicentred. Randomisation method: a computer‐generated randomization sequence. Power analysis: a group of 280 patients would give 80% power to detect the expected a difference of 8.2% in obtained number of metaphase II oocytes. Study period: not stated. Sample size: 431. Conflict of interests: not stated.
Participants	Patients with normal ovulatory cycles, the presence of both ovaries, a male partner and an ICSI indication. Age: between 18 and 40 years. FSH: < 11.2. Exclusion criteria: clinically significant systemic disease; smoking more than 10 cigarettes a day; any contraindication to pregnancy; serum/plasma LH; FSH ratio > 2; more than 2 previous ICSI cycles in which gonadotrophin stimulation was used. Baseline characteristics to compare: Age, BMI, duration of infertility, previous assisted reproduction cycles rFSH+rLH.
Interventions	Luteal started pituitary downregulation with GnRH agonist.When serum E2 < 75 pg/ml 225 IU rFSH was started. Standard treatment: rFSH dosage alone. Experimental treatment: rFSH in combination with 150 IU rLH until hCG.
Outcomes	Primary endpoint: number of metaphase II oocytes retrieved. Secondary endpoints: cancellation rate, fertilisation rate, rFSH dose used, number of embryo's obtained, biochemical, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate and live birth rate.
Notes	No data on multiple pregnancies. No data on cryo‐survival. Funding: not stated
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	A computer‐generated randomization sequence.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not stated.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Non‐blinding is not likely to affect the outcomes of interest as they are objectively assessed.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No information was provided on whether or not outcome assessors were blinded but non‐blinding of outcome assessment is not likely to affect outcomes of interest as they are objectively assessed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Numbers of women analyzed at the end of study were the same as those randomized at the beginning.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcome measures were prespecified in the methods section.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups.