↓ Skip to main content

Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006109.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cindy Farquhar, Luk Rombauts, Jan AM Kremer, Anne Lethaby, Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke

Abstract

Among subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), hormone pills given before ovarian stimulation may improve outcomes. To determine whether pretreatment with the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) or with a progestogen or oestrogen alone in ovarian stimulation protocols affects outcomes in subfertile couples undergoing ART. We searched the following databases from inception to January 2017: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and registers of ongoing trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hormonal pretreatment in women undergoing ART. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and pregnancy loss. We included 29 RCTs (4701 women) of pretreatment with COCPs, progestogens or oestrogens versus no pretreatment or alternative pretreatments, in gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist cycles. Overall, evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias and imprecision. Most studies did not describe their methods in adequate detail. Combined oral contraceptive pill versus no pretreatmentWith antagonist cycles in both groups the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95; 6 RCTs; 1335 women; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of pregnancy loss (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.26; 5 RCTs; 868 women; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.26; 2 RCTs; 125 women; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS; OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.40; 2 RCTs; 642 women; I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence), or ovarian cyst formation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.75; 1 RCT; 64 women; very low quality evidence).In COCP plus antagonist cycles versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.25; 4 RCTs; 724 women; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.19; 4 RCTs; 546 women; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or OHSS (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.96; 2 RCTs; 290 women, I(2) = 0%), but there were fewer pregnancy losses in the pretreatment group (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.72; 5 RCTs; 780 women; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data suitable for analysis on ovarian cyst formation.One small study comparing COCP versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles showed no clear difference between the groups for any of the reported outcomes. Progestogen versus no pretreatmentAll studies used the same protocol (antagonist, agonist or gonadotrophins) in both groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine any differences in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (agonist: OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.65; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I(2) = 24%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.54; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.23; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (agonist: OR 2.26, 95% CI 0.67 to 7.55; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.09; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.12; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (agonist: no data available; antagonist: OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.76; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: no data available). Three studies, all using agonist cycles, reported ovarian cyst formation: rates were lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.32; 374 women; I(2) = 1%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. Oestrogen versus no pretreatmentIn antagonist or agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.17; 2 RCTs; 502 women; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 242 women; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.47; 1 RCT; 49 women; very low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.06; 1 RCT; 220 women; very low quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 53.59; 1 RCT; 22 women; very low quality evidence) or OHSS (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.42; 1 RCT; 220 women). Ovarian cyst formation was not reported. Head-to-head comparisonsCOCP was compared with progestogen (1 RCT, 44 women), and with oestrogen (2 RCTs, 146 women), and progestogen was compared with oestrogen (1 RCT, 48 women), with an antagonist cycle in both groups. COCP in an agonist cycle was compared with oestrogen in an antagonist cycle (1 RCT, 25 women). Data were scant but there was no clear evidence that any of the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy, pregnancy loss or other adverse events. Among women undergoing ovarian stimulation in antagonist protocols, COCP pretreatment was associated with a lower rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than no pretreatment. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy were influenced by pretreatment with progestogens or oestrogens, or by COCP pretreatment using other stimulation protocols. Findings on adverse events were inconclusive, except that progesterone pretreatment may reduce the risk of ovarian cysts in agonist cycles, and COCP in antagonist cycles may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss compared with no pretreatment in agonist cycles.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 8 10%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 22 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 15 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,427,700
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,043
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,642
of 266,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#131
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 266,228 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.