↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Glucocorticoid supplementation during ovarian stimulation for IVF or ICSI

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Glucocorticoid supplementation during ovarian stimulation for IVF or ICSI
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004752.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theodoros Kalampokas, Zabeena Pandian, Stephen D Keay, Siladitya Bhattacharya

Abstract

Ovarian response to stimulation during in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) plays an important role in determining live birth rates. Adjuvant treatments during ovarian stimulation that have different modes of action have been used to improve ovarian response to stimulation and outcome of IVF. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are a class of steroid hormones that have been used either alone or in combination with other stimulatory regimens in order to improve folliculogenesis and pregnancy rates. However, considerable uncertainty remains over whether administration of glucocorticoid during ovarian stimulation until oocyte recovery is superior to no glucocorticoid in improving live birth rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. To determine the safety and effectiveness of systemic glucocorticoids during ovarian stimulation for IVF and ICSI cycles. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to 10 October 2016. We handsearched reference lists of articles, trial registers and relevant conference proceedings and contacted researchers in the field. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant treatment with systemic glucocorticoids during ovarian stimulation for IVF or ICSI cycles versus no adjuvant treatment. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. Our primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and side-effects. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled the data using a fixed-effect model. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. Four RCTs were included in the review (416 women). The trials compared glucocorticoid supplementation during IVF stimulation versus placebo. Two of the studies had data in a form that we could not enter into analysis, so results include data from only two trials (310) women. For the outcome of live birth, data were available for only 212 women, as the larger study had data available from only one study centre.One of the studies gave inadequate description of randomisation methods, but the other was at low risk of bias in all domains. The evidence was rated as low or very low quality for all outcomes, mainly due to imprecision, with low sample sizes and few events.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference between the groups in live birth rate (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.58; 2 RCTs, n = 212, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with placebo is assumed to be 15%, the chance following supplementation would be between 7% and 31%. There was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.90; 2 RCTs, n = 310, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence).The evidence suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy with placebo is assumed to be 24%, the chance following treatment with glucocorticoid supplementation would be between 23% and 47%. There was also insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference between the groups in multiple-pregnancy rate (OR 3.32 , 95% CI 0.12 to 91.60; 1 RCT , n = 20, very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.05 to 18.57; 1 RCT, n = 20, very low-quality evidence). Neither of the studies reported OHSS or side-effects. The safety and effectiveness of glucocorticoid administration in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF/ICSI cycles (until the day of oocyte retrieval) is unclear due to the small number of studies and low event rates. Whilst glucocorticoids possible increase the clinical pregnancy rate, there may be little or no impact on live birth rate. More research is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 18%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 24 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 July 2020.
All research outputs
#10,078,368
of 18,144,179 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,306
of 11,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,195
of 274,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#212
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,144,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. 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 274,581 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 249 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.