Summary of findings 2. Higher compared to lower degree of injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques.
| Higher compared to lower degree of injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques | |||||
| Patient or population: women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques Setting: clinic Intervention: higher Comparison: lower degree of injury | |||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Risk with lower degree of injury | Risk with Higher | ||||
| Live birth per woman randomised: sensitivity analysis (including all studies) | 56 per 1,000 | 70 per 1,000 (18 to 240) | OR 1.28 (0.31 to 5.37) | 129 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 3 |
| Miscarriage per woman randomised: sensitivity analysis (including all studies) | 56 per 1,000 | 70 per 1,000 (18 to 240) | OR 1.28 (0.31 to 5.37) | 129 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 3 |
| Clinical pregnancy per woman randomised: sensitivity analysis (including all studies) | 111 per 1,000 | 141 per 1,000 (54 to 318) | OR 1.31 (0.46 to 3.73) | 129 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 3 |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval;OR: Odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial. | |||||
| 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. | |||||
1 Downgraded twice for high risk of bias as the included study is associated with very serious risk of bias
2 Downgraded once for indirectness as the trial is unlikely to be generalisable to other settings; for instance it compared pipelle with Shepard catheter and did not evaluate other types of endometrial injury
3 Downgraded once for imprecision as only one trial is included and the confidence interval is wide