Vuong 2015.

Methods	Prospective, randomized trial. Randomisation: by means of a computer programme. Power analysis: 109 patients in each group would be required. Study period: 1 October 2012 to 30 June 2014. Sample size: 240 patients. Conflict of interests: No conflicts of interest.
Participants	All patients undergoing routine assisted cycles during the trial period were invited to participate. Age: ≥ 35 years. FSH: not stated. Exclusion criteria: participation in another interventional clinical trial, had PCOS, were WHO group 1, had uterine abnormalities such as uterine bicornuate, uterine cavity adhesion, and/or had endocrine disorders such as hyperprolactinaemia and thyroid disorders. Baseline characteristics to compare: age, number of treatment cycles, BMI, AMH, AFC, Cycles with reduced ovarian reserve.
Interventions	Ovarian stimulation was performed by using a GnRH antagonist protocol; rFSH was administered on day 2 or day 3 of the menstrual cycle. The first rFSH dose was individualised for each patient based on the following criteria: AFC ≤ 6, dose 300 IU/day; AFC7‐15, dose 225 IU/day; and AFC ≥ 16, dose 150 IU/day. Standard treatment: continued to receive rFSH. Experimental treatment: rLH was supplemented from day 6, 150/75 IU/day.
Outcomes	Primary endpoint: live birth rate. Secondary endpoints: clinical pregnancy rate, embryo implantation rate, miscarriage rate, duration of stimulation, total number of rFSH units used, estradiol concentrations on the hCG‐administered day, endometrial thickness on the hCG‐administered day, premature LH surge rate (>10 IU/l), number of oocytes retrieved, number of embryos, number of good embryos, number of patients with a premature rise in progesterone (>1.5 ng/ml) on the day of hCG administration, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, cycle cancellation due to poor response.
Notes	Funding: This study was supported by the Research Center for Genetics and Reproductive Health, School of Medicine, Vietnam National University HCMC. The authors state that they have no financial or commercial conflicts of interest.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random sequence.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation was concealed in sealed envelopes.
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	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 randomised at the beginning).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcome measures were specified in the methods section.
Other bias	Low risk	Baseline demographic characteristics similar between the two treatment groups.