Summary of findings 4. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) versus LOD for subfertile women with PCOS.
| CHM plus LOD compared to LOD for subfertile women with PCOS | ||||||
| Population: subfertile women with PCOS Setting: fertility clinics Intervention: CHM + LOD Comparison: LOD | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| LOD | CHM + LOD | |||||
| Live birth | Not reported | |||||
| Pregnancy rate (per woman) | 400 per 1000 | 700 per 1000 (324 to 919) | OR 3.50 (0.72 to 17.09) | 30 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b | |
| Adverse events | Not reported | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk is the median control group risk across studies. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
aDowngraded one level for serious risk of bias: the study authors did not report the study methods in sufficient detail. bDowngraded two levels for very serious imprecision: small study, few events, and CIs were compatible with no effect or with substantial harm in the CHM group.