Mansour 2011.

Methods	Design: 2 RCTs within the same study analysed as 4‐armed parallel RCT
Participants	Number: 280 + 215 = 495 Women's age (mean years; experimental 100, 200 vs control; 500 vs control): 29 vs 28.5 vs 29.1; 28.3 vs 28.4 Inclusion criteria: women aged < 40 years old with infertility due to male factor Exclusion criteria: previous IVF/ICSI trials, including a successful trial; azoospermia; uterine myoma or previous myomectomy; endometriosis; presence of hydrosalpinges Ovarian controlled hyperstimulation: not mentioned Fertilisation: ICSI Stage of the embryo at transfer: cleavage Embryo processing: fresh Number of embryos transferred (mean; experimental 100, 200 vs control; 500 vs control): 2.9 vs 2.8 vs 2.9; 2.9 vs 2.8
Interventions	Experimental 100 (n = 92): 40 µL of tissue culture medium (G‐2 plus ref. 10132, Vitrolife, Göteborg, Sweden) containing hCG 100 IU injected intrauterine approximately 7 minutes before ET Experimental 200 (n = 93): 40 µL of tissue culture medium (G‐2 plus ref. 10132, Vitrolife, Göteborg, Sweden) containing hCG 200 IU injected intrauterine approximately 7 minutes before ET Experimental 500 (n = 108): 40 µL of tissue culture medium (G‐2 plus ref. 10132, Vitrolife, Göteborg, Sweden) containing hCG 500 IU injected intrauterine approximately 7 minutes before ET Control (n = 95 + 107): no intrauterine hCG injection before ET
Outcomes	Live birth, miscarriage, clinical pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy
Notes	Location: The Egyptian IVF‐ET Center, Cairo, Egypt Period: January 2010 to January 2011 Power calculation: yes, but not met Funding: The Egyptian IVF‐ET Center Trial registration: NCT01030393 Publication type: full text Live birth rate was established by personal communication with study authors, June 2015. Study publication reported number of deliveries, which included 6 women who had stillbirths (3 in each group).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants were randomised to 2 groups with the use of sealed dark envelopes.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation concealment not mentioned. Could explain different withdrawal rates between groups
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Not blinded, but unlikely to induce bias
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Women lost to follow‐up live birth (similar numbers between groups)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Reported on all important outcomes
Other bias	High risk	Interim analysis with change of protocol and premature ending of study. Relatively high live birth rate in control group, reasons unclear