↓ Skip to main content

Volume expanders for the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Volume expanders for the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001302.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

MA Youssef, Selma Mourad

Abstract

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is a serious and potentially fatal complication of ovarian stimulation which affects 1% to 14% of all in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. A number of clinical studies with conflicting results have reported on the use of plasma expanders such as albumin, hydroxyethyl starch (HES), mannitol, polygeline and dextran as a possible intervention for the prevention of OHSS. Women with very high estradiol levels, high numbers of follicles or oocytes retrieved, and women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), are at particularly high risk of developing OHSS. Plasma expanders are not commonly used nowadays in ovarian hyperstimulation. This is mainly because clinical evidence on their effectiveness remains sparse, because of the low incidence of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and the simultaneous introduction of mild stimulation approaches, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols and the freeze-all strategy for the prevention of OHSS. To review the effectiveness and safety of administration of volume expanders for the prevention of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in high-risk women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment cycles. We searched databases including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and trial registers to September 2015; no date restrictions were used as new comparators were included in this search. The references of relevant publications were also searched. We attempted to contact authors to provide or clarify data that were unclear from trial or abstract reports. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing volume expanders versus placebo or no treatment for the prevention of OHSS in high-risk women undergoing ovarian hyperstimulation as part of any assisted reproductive technique. Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted relevant data. The primary review outcome was moderate or severe OHSS. Other outcomes were live birth, pregnancy and adverse events. We combined data to calculate pooled Peto odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each intervention. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison, using GRADE methods. We included nine RCTs (1867 women) comparing human albumin (seven RCTs) or HES (two RCTs) or mannitol (one RCT) versus placebo or no treatment for prevention of OHSS. The evidence was very low to moderate quality for all comparisons. The main limitations were imprecision, poor reporting of study methods, and failure to blind outcome assessment.There was evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous albumin on OHSS, though heterogeneity was substantial (Peto OR 0.67 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95, seven studies, 1452 high risk women; I² = 69%, very low quality evidence) . This suggests that if the rate of moderate or severe OHSS with no treatment is 12%, it will be about 9% (6% to12%) with the use of intravenous albumin. However, there was evidence of a detrimental effect on pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.72 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94, I² = 42%, seven studies 1069 high risk women, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy is 40% without treatment, it will be about 32% (27% to 38%) with the use of albumin.There was evidence of a beneficial effect of HES on OHSS (Peto OR 0.27 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59, I² = 0%, two studies, 272 women, very low quality evidence). This suggests that if the rate of moderate or severe OHSS with no treatment is 16%, it will be about 5% (2% to 10%) with the use of HES. There was no evidence of an effect on pregnancy rates (Peto OR 1.20 95% CI 0.49 to 2.93, one study, 168 women, very low quality evidence).There was evidence of a beneficial effect of mannitol on OHSS (Peto OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.64, one study, 226 women with PCOS, low quality evidence). This means that if the risk of moderate or severe OHSS with no treatment is 52%, it will be about 29% (19% to 41%) with mannitol. There was no evidence of an effect on pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.85 95% CI 0.47 to 1.55; one study, 226 women, low quality evidence).Live birth rates were not reported in any of the studies. Adverse events appeared to be uncommon, but were too poorly reported to reach any firm conclusions. Evidence suggests that the plasma expanders assessed in this review (human albumin, HES and mannitol) reduce rates of moderate and severe OHSS in women at high risk. Adverse events appear to be uncommon, but were too poorly reported to reach any firm conclusions, and there were no data on live birth. However, there was evidence that human albumin reduces pregnancy rates. While there was no evidence that HES, or mannitol had any influence on pregnancy rates, the evidence of effectiveness was based on very few trials which need to be confirmed in additional, larger randomised controlled trials (RCTs) before they should be considered for routine use in clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 32%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 58%
Unspecified 5 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#7,093,843
of 12,570,318 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,115
of 10,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,655
of 260,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#144
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,570,318 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,597 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.