↓ Skip to main content

Recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005070.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monique H Mochtar, Nora A Danhof, Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke, Fulco Van der Veen, Madelon van Wely

Abstract

One of the various ovarian stimulation regimens used for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles is the use of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) in combination with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue. GnRH analogues prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges. Since they deprive the growing follicles of LH, the question arises as to whether supplementation with recombinant LH (rLH) would increase live birth rates. This is an updated Cochrane Review; the original version was published in 2007. To compare the effectiveness and safety of recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) combined with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation compared to rFSH alone in women undergoing in-vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). For this update we searched the following databases in June 2016: the Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ongoing trials registers, and checked the references of retrieved articles. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in IVF/ISCI cycles. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate and incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Secondary outcomes included ongoing pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate and cancellation rates (for poor response or imminent OHSS). We included 36 RCTs (8125 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods) and imprecision.Live birth rates: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in live birth rates (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.06; n = 499; studies = 4; I(2) = 63%, very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 17% it will be between 15% and 30% using rLH combined with rFSH.OHSS: There may be little or no difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in OHSS rates (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.01; n = 2178; studies = 6; I(2) = 10%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of OHSS following treatment with rFSH alone is 1%, it will be between 0% and 1% using rLH combined with rFSH.Ongoing pregnancy rate: The use of rLH combined with rFSH probably improves ongoing pregnancy rates, compared to rFSH alone (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42; participants = 3129; studies = 19; I(2) = 2%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the ongoing pregnancy rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 21%, it will be between 21% and 27% using rLH combined with rFSH.Miscarriage rate: The use of rLH combined with rFSH probably makes little or no difference to miscarriage rates, compared to rFSH alone (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; n = 1711; studies = 13; I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 7%, the miscarriage rate following treatment with rLH combined with rFSH will be between 4% and 9%.Cancellation rates: There may be little or no difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in rates of cancellation due to low response (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.10; n = 2251; studies = 11; I(2) = 16%, low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the risk of cancellation due to low response following treatment with rFSH alone is 7%, it will be between 4% and 7% using rLH combined with rFSH.We are uncertain whether use of rLH combined with rFSH improves rates of cancellation due to imminent OHSS compared to rFSH alone. Use of a fixed effect model suggested a benefit in the combination group (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89; n = 2976; studies = 8; I(2) = 60%, very low quality evidence) but use of a random effects model did not support the conclusion that there was a difference between the groups (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.97). We found no clear evidence of a difference between rLH combined with rFSH and rFSH alone in rates of live birth or OHSS. The evidence for these comparisons was of very low-quality for live birth and low quality for OHSS. We found moderate quality evidence that the use of rLH combined with rFSH may lead to more ongoing pregnancies than rFSH alone. There was also moderate-quality evidence suggesting little or no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of cancellation due to low response or imminent OHSS, but the evidence for these outcomes was of low or very low quality.We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to encourage or discourage stimulation regimens that include rLH combined with rFSH in IVF/ICSI cycles.

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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 25%
Unspecified 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Other 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Other 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 65%
Unspecified 9 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 1 2%

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 24 May 2017.
All research outputs
#7,554,631
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,142
of 9,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,688
of 263,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#180
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,882 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 263,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.