Skip to main content

Table 2 DHEA compared to control for [IVF]

From: Administration of dehydroepiandrosterone improves endometrial thickness in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patient or population: patients with [IVF]

Settings:

Intervention: DHEA

Comparison: Control

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risksa (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

No of Participants (studies)

Quality of the evidence (GRADE)

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

DHEA

Live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate

Study population

OR 1.33

(0.98 to 1.82)

1217

(10 studies)

low 1,2

141 per 1000

179 per 1000

(139 to 230)

Moderate

127 per 1000

162 per 1000

(125 to 209)

CPR

Study population

OR 1.34

(1.08 to 1.67)

1949

(15 studies)

low 1,2

196 per 1000

246 per 1000

(208 to 289)

Moderate

160 per 1000

203 per 1000

(171 to 241)

MR

Study population

OR 0.83

(0.45 to 1.53)

391

(6 studies)

low 1,2

139 per 1000

118 per 1000

(68 to 198)

Moderate

123 per 1000

104 per 1000

(59 to 177)

EMT

 

The mean emt in the intervention groups was

0.93 higher

(0.27 to 1.6 higher)

 

559

(7 studies)

low 1,3

Number of retrieved oocytes

 

The mean number of retrieved oocytes in the intervention groups was

0.73 higher

(0.36 to 1.1 higher)

 

1829

(15 studies)

low 1,3

Number of MII oocytes

 

The mean number of mii oocytes in the intervention groups was

0.56 higher

(0.06 lower to 1.18 higher)

 

842

(8 studies)

very low 1,3,4

Number of oocytes fertilized

 

The mean number of oocytes fertilized in the intervention groups was

0.48 higher

(0.1 to 0.87 higher)

 

1077

(8 studies)

low 1,3

Number of transferred embryos

 

The mean number of transferred embryos in the intervention groups was

0.27 higher

(0.09 to 0.46 higher)

 

1020

(11 studies)

very low 1,2,3

Number of good quality embryos

 

The mean number of good quality embryos in the intervention groups was

0.65 higher

(0.27 to 1.03 higher)

 

1063

(8 studies)

low 1,3

  1. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  2. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  3. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  4. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  5. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate
  6. aThe basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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)
  7. CI Confidence interval, OR Odds ratio
  8. 1 Methods of allocation concealment not clearly described, or too many participants lost to follow-up, or high risk of selective reporting bias
  9. 2 Small sample sizes, or very wide CIs
  10. 3 High heterogeneity
  11. 4 Obviously asymmetrical funnel plot