Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Jan 4;1(1):CD012693.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012693.pub3.

Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI)

Olina Ngwenya  1 , Sarah F Lensen  2 , Andy Vail  3 , Ben Willem J Mol  4 , Frank J Broekmans  5   6 , Jack Wilkinson  1
Affiliations
Review

Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI)

Olina Ngwenya et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: During a stimulated cycle of in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), women receive daily doses of gonadotropin follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to induce multifollicular development in the ovaries. A normal response to stimulation (e.g. retrieval of 5 to 15 oocytes) is considered desirable. Generally, the number of eggs retrieved is associated with the dose of FSH. Both hyper-response and poor response are associated with an increased chance of cycle cancellation. In hyper-response, this is due to increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), while poor response cycles are cancelled because the quantity and quality of oocytes is expected to be low. Clinicians often individualise the FSH dose using patient characteristics predictive of ovarian response. Traditionally, this meant women's age, but increasingly, clinicians use various ovarian reserve tests (ORTs). These include basal FSH (bFSH), antral follicle count (AFC), and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). It is unclear whether individualising FSH dose improves clinical outcomes. This review updates the 2018 version.

Objectives: To assess the effects of individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve in women undergoing IVF/ICSI.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers in February 2023.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared (a) different doses of FSH in women with a defined ORT profile (i.e. predicted low, normal, or high responders based on AMH, AFC, and/or bFSH) or (b) an individualised dosing strategy (based on at least one ORT measure) versus uniform dosing or a different individualised dosing algorithm.

Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and severe OHSS.

Main results: We included 26 studies, involving 8520 women (6 new studies added to 20 studies included in the previous version). We treated RCTs with multiple comparisons as separate trials for the purpose of this review. Meta-analysis was limited due to clinical heterogeneity. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to low, with the main limitations being imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding. Direct dose comparisons according to predicted response in women Due to differences in dose comparisons, caution is required when interpreting the RCTs in predicted low responders. All evidence was low or very low certainty. Effect estimates were very imprecise, and increased FSH dosing may or may not have an impact on rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy, OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. Similarly, in predicted normal responders (10 studies, 4 comparisons), higher doses may or may not impact the probability of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (e.g. 200 versus 100 international units (IU): odds ratio (OR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 522 women) or clinical pregnancy. Results were imprecise, and a small benefit or harm remains possible. There were too few events for the OHSS outcome to enable inferences. In predicted high responders, lower doses may or may not affect live birth/ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.46; 1 study, 521 women), severe OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. It is also unclear whether lower doses reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 6.67; 1 study, 521 participants). ORT-algorithm studies Eight trials compared an ORT-based algorithm to a non-ORT control group. It is unclear whether live birth/ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy are increased using an ORT-based algorithm (live birth/ongoing pregnancy: OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; I2 = 30%; 7 studies, 4400 women; clinical pregnancy: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; I2 = 18%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). However, ORT algorithms may reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2724 women; low-certainty evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with a standard starting dose is 25%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 25% and 31%. If the chance of moderate or severe OHSS with a standard starting dose is 5%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 2% and 5%. These results should be treated cautiously due to heterogeneity in the algorithms: some algorithms appear to be more effective than others.

Authors' conclusions: We did not find that tailoring the FSH dose in any particular ORT population (low, normal, high ORT) affected live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates, but we could not rule out differences, due to sample size limitations. Low-certainty evidence suggests that it is unclear if ORT-based individualisation leads to an increase in live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to a policy of giving all women 150 IU. The confidence interval is consistent with an increase of up to around six percentage points with ORT-based dosing (e.g. from 25% to 31%) or a very small decrease (< 1%). A difference of this magnitude could be important to many women. It is unclear if this is driven by improved outcomes in a particular subgroup. Further, ORT algorithms reduced the incidence of OHSS compared to standard dosing of 150 IU. However, the size of the effect is also unclear. The included studies were heterogeneous in design, which limited the interpretation of pooled estimates. It is likely that different ORT algorithms differ in their effectiveness. Current evidence does not provide a clear justification for adjusting the dose of 150 IU in poor or normal responders, especially as increased dose is associated with greater total FSH dose and cost. It is unclear whether a decreased dose in predicted high responders reduces OHSS, although this would appear to be the most likely explanation for the results.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Olina Ngwenya does not have any conflicts of interest to declare. She is funded by an NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) Pre‐doctoral Fellowship (NIHR302029).

Sarah Lensen, Andy Vail, and Jack Wilkinson are editors of Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility. They took no part in the editorial process or decision‐making for this review.

Sarah Lensen and Andy Vail do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Jack Wilkinson received no specific funding for this work, but was a supervisor for ON's award. He declares no other conflicts of interest.

Ben Mol reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), from Merck Merck KGaA, from ObsEva, and from Guerbet, outside the submitted work.

Dr. Broekmans reports personal fees from Member advisory board Merck B.V., personal fees from Member advisory board Ferring B.V., grants from Research support grant Merck B.V., personal fees from Speaking fee Scientific dinner symposium, Besins Healthcare, outside the submitted work.

Frank Broekmans and Ben Mol are investigators in the OPTIMIST trial, which is included in this review (Oudshoorn 2017; Van Tilborg 2017). Frank Broekmans is an investigator on two other trials included in this review (Klinkert 2005; Olivennes 2015). Ben Mol is an investigator on one other trial included in the review (Liu 2022). To manage this potential conflict, review authors did not extract data nor assess risk of bias for the studies with which they have been involved.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Anticipated low responders: higher vs lower dose, outcome: 1.1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy per woman randomised.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Anticipated normal responders: higher vs lower dose, outcome: 2.1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Anticipated normal responders: higher vs lower dose, outcome: 2.21 Dose‐response: live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
7
7
Forest plot of comparison: 3 Anticipated high‐responders: higher vs lower dose, outcome: 3.1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
8
8
Forest plot of comparison: 3 Anticipated high‐responders: higher vs lower dose, outcome: 3.21 Dose‐response: live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
9
9
Forest plot of comparison: 4 ORT‐based algorithm vs standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, outcome: 4.1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy per woman randomised.
10
10
Forest plot of comparison: 4 ORT‐based algorithm vs standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, outcome: 4.5 Moderate or severe OHSS.
11
11
Forest plot of comparison: 6 AMH + AFC‐based algorithm vs AFC‐based algorithm, outcome: 6.1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 1: Live birth or ongoing pregnancy
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 2: Severe OHSS
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 3: Clinical pregnancy
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 4: Time to clinical pregnancy
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 5: Moderate or severe OHSS
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 6: Multiple pregnancy in randomised women
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 7: Log(N oocytes retrieved); data presented on the log scale ‐ cannot interpret pooled estimates as N of oocytes
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 8: Poor response to stimulation
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 9: Normal response to stimulation
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 10: Hyper‐response to stimulation
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 11: Cycle cancellations for poor response
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 12: Cycle cancellations for hyper‐response
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 13: Cycle cancellations for poor or hyper‐response
1.14
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 14: Women with at least one transferable embryo
1.15
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 15: Total dose of FSH
1.16
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 16: Duration of FSH administration
1.17
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 17: Cost per woman randomised
1.18
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 18: Cumulative live birth: 1 cycle (fresh + frozen)
1.19
1.19. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 19: Cumulative live birth: 18 months
1.20
1.20. Analysis
Comparison 1: Anticipated low responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 20: Multiple pregnancy in women with clinical pregnancy
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 1: Live birth or ongoing pregnancy
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 2: Severe OHSS
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 3: Clinical pregnancy
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 4: Time to clinical pregnancy
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 5: Moderate or severe OHSS
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 6: Multiple pregnancy in randomised women
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 7: Log(N oocytes retrieved); data presented on the log scale ‐ cannot interpret pooled estimates as N of oocytes
2.8
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 8: Poor response to stimulation
2.9
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 9: Normal response to stimulation
2.10
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 10: Hyper‐response to stimulation
2.11
2.11. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 11: Cycle cancellations for poor response
2.12
2.12. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 12: Cycle cancellations for hyper‐response
2.13
2.13. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 13: Cycle cancellations for poor or hyper‐response
2.14
2.14. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 14: Women with at least one transferable embryo
2.15
2.15. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 15: Total dose of FSH
2.16
2.16. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 16: Duration of FSH administration
2.17
2.17. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 17: Cost per woman randomised
2.18
2.18. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 18: Cumulative live birth: 1 cycle (fresh + frozen)
2.19
2.19. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 19: Cumulative live birth: 18 months
2.20
2.20. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 20: Multiple pregnancy in women with clinical pregnancy
2.21
2.21. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 21: Dose‐response: live birth or ongoing pregnancy
2.22
2.22. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 22: Dose‐response: cumulative live birth: 1 cycle (fresh + frozen)
2.23
2.23. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 23: Dose‐response: clinical pregnancy
2.24
2.24. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 24: Dose‐response: log(N oocytes retrieved); data presented on the log scale ‐ cannot interpret pooled estimates as N of oocytes
2.25
2.25. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 25: Dose‐response: poor response to stimulation
2.26
2.26. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 26: Dose‐response: normal response to stimulation
2.27
2.27. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 27: Dose‐response: hyper‐response to stimulation
2.28
2.28. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 28: Dose‐response: cycle cancellations for poor response
2.29
2.29. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 29: Dose‐response: women with at least one transferable embryo
2.30
2.30. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 30: Dose‐response: total dose of FSH
2.31
2.31. Analysis
Comparison 2: Anticipated normal responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 31: Dose‐response: duration of FSH administration
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 1: Live birth or ongoing pregnancy
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 2: Severe OHSS
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 3: Clinical pregnancy
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 4: Time to clinical pregnancy
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 5: Moderate or severe OHSS
3.6
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 6: Multiple pregnancy in randomised women
3.7
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 7: Log(N oocytes retrieved); data presented on the log scale ‐ cannot interpret pooled estimates as N of oocytes
3.8
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 8: Poor response to stimulation
3.9
3.9. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 9: Normal response to stimulation
3.10
3.10. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 10: Hyper‐response to stimulation
3.11
3.11. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 11: Cycle cancellations for poor response
3.12
3.12. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 12: Cycle cancellations for hyper‐response
3.13
3.13. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 13: Cycle cancellations for poor or hyper‐response
3.14
3.14. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 14: Women with at least one transferable embryo
3.15
3.15. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 15: Total dose of FSH
3.16
3.16. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 16: Duration of FSH administration
3.17
3.17. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 17: Cost per woman randomised
3.18
3.18. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 18: Cumulative live birth: 1 cycle (fresh + frozen)
3.19
3.19. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 19: Cumulative live birth: 18 months
3.20
3.20. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 20: Multiple pregnancy in women with clinical pregnancy
3.21
3.21. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 21: Dose‐response: live birth or ongoing pregnancy
3.22
3.22. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 22: Dose‐response: clinical pregnancy
3.23
3.23. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 23: Dose‐response: cumulative live birth: 1 cycle (fresh + frozen)
3.24
3.24. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 24: Dose‐response: severe OHSS
3.25
3.25. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 25: Dose‐response: moderate or severe OHSS
3.26
3.26. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 26: Dose‐response: log(N oocytes retrieved); data presented on the log scale ‐ cannot interpret pooled estimates as N of oocytes
3.27
3.27. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 27: Dose‐response: poor response to stimulation
3.28
3.28. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 28: Dose‐response: normal response to stimulation
3.29
3.29. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 29: Dose‐response: hyper‐response to stimulation
3.30
3.30. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 30: Dose‐response: cycle cancellations for poor response
3.31
3.31. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 31: Dose‐response: cycle cancellations for hyper‐response
3.32
3.32. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 32: Dose‐response: cycle cancellations for poor or hyper‐response
3.33
3.33. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 33: Dose‐response: women with at least one transferable embryo
3.34
3.34. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 34: Dose‐response: total dose of FSH
3.35
3.35. Analysis
Comparison 3: Anticipated high‐responders: higher versus lower dose, Outcome 35: Dose‐response: duration of FSH administration
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 1: Live birth or ongoing pregnancy
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 2: Severe OHSS
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 3: Clinical pregnancy
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 4: Time to clinical pregnancy
4.5
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 5: Moderate or severe OHSS
4.6
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 6: Multiple pregnancy in randomised women
4.7
4.7. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 7: Log(N oocytes retrieved); data presented on the log scale ‐ cannot interpret pooled estimates as N of oocytes
4.8
4.8. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 8: Poor response to stimulation
4.9
4.9. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 9: Normal response to stimulation
4.10
4.10. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 10: Hyper‐response to stimulation
4.11
4.11. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 11: Cycle cancellations for poor response
4.12
4.12. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 12: Cycle cancellations for hyper‐response
4.13
4.13. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 13: Cycle cancellations for poor or hyper‐response
4.14
4.14. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 14: Women with at least one transferable embryo
4.15
4.15. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 15: Total dose of FSH
4.16
4.16. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 16: Duration of FSH administration
4.17
4.17. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 17: Cost per woman randomised
4.18
4.18. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 18: Cumulative live birth: 1 cycle (fresh + frozen)
4.19
4.19. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 19: Cumulative live birth: 18 months
4.20
4.20. Analysis
Comparison 4: ORT‐based algorithm versus standard dose or non‐ORT based algorithm, Outcome 20: Multiple pregnancy in women with clinical pregnancy
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 1: Live birth or ongoing pregnancy
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 2: Severe OHSS
5.3
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 3: Clinical pregnancy
5.4
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 4: Time to clinical pregnancy
5.5
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 5: Moderate or severe OHSS
5.6
5.6. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 6: Multiple pregnancy in randomised women
5.7
5.7. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 7: Log(N oocytes retrieved); data presented on the log scale ‐ cannot interpret pooled estimates as N of oocytes
5.8
5.8. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 8: Poor response to stimulation
5.9
5.9. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 9: Normal response to stimulation
5.10
5.10. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 10: Hyper‐response to stimulation
5.11
5.11. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 11: Cycle cancellations for poor response
5.12
5.12. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 12: Cycle cancellations for hyper‐response
5.13
5.13. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 13: Cycle cancellations for poor or hyper‐response
5.14
5.14. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 14: Women with at least one transferable embryo
5.15
5.15. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 15: Total dose of FSH
5.16
5.16. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 16: Duration of FSH administration
5.17
5.17. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 17: Live birth or ongoing pregnancy (including FET for freeze‐all)
5.18
5.18. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 18: Cost per woman randomised
5.19
5.19. Analysis
Comparison 5: AMH‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 19: Multiple pregnancy in women with clinical pregnancy
6.1
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 1: Live birth or ongoing pregnancy
6.2
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 2: Severe OHSS
6.3
6.3. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 3: Clinical pregnancy
6.4
6.4. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 4: Time to clinical pregnancy
6.5
6.5. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 5: Moderate or severe OHSS
6.6
6.6. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 6: Multiple pregnancy in randomised women
6.7
6.7. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 7: Log(N oocytes retrieved); data presented on the log scale ‐ cannot interpret pooled estimates as N of oocytes
6.8
6.8. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 8: Poor response to stimulation
6.9
6.9. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 9: Normal response to stimulation
6.10
6.10. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 10: Hyper‐response to stimulation
6.11
6.11. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 11: Cycle cancellations for poor response
6.12
6.12. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 12: Cycle cancellations for hyper‐response
6.13
6.13. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 13: Cycle cancellations for poor or hyper‐response
6.14
6.14. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 14: Women with at least one transferable embryo
6.15
6.15. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 15: Total dose of FSH
6.16
6.16. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 16: Duration of FSH administration
6.17
6.17. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 17: Cost per woman randomised
6.18
6.18. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 18: Live birth or ongoing pregnancy (including FET for freeze‐all)
6.19
6.19. Analysis
Comparison 6: AMH + AFC‐based algorithm versus AFC‐based algorithm, Outcome 19: Multiple pregnancy in women with clinical pregnancy
7.1
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 1: Live birth or ongoing pregnancy
7.2
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 2: Severe OHSS
7.3
7.3. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 3: Clinical pregnancy
7.4
7.4. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 4: Time to clinical pregnancy
7.5
7.5. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 5: Moderate or severe OHSS
7.6
7.6. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 6: Multiple pregnancy in randomised women
7.7
7.7. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 7: Log(N oocytes retrieved); data presented on the log scale ‐ cannot interpret pooled estimates as N of oocytes
7.8
7.8. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 8: Poor response to stimulation
7.9
7.9. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 9: Normal response to stimulation
7.10
7.10. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 10: Hyper‐response to stimulation
7.11
7.11. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 11: Cycle cancellations for poor response
7.12
7.12. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 12: Cycle cancellations for hyper‐response
7.13
7.13. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 13: Cycle cancellations for poor or hyper‐response
7.14
7.14. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 14: Women with at least one transferable embryo
7.15
7.15. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 15: Total dose of FSH
7.16
7.16. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 16: Duration of FSH administration
7.17
7.17. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 17: Cost per woman randomised
7.18
7.18. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 18: Live birth or ongoing pregnancy (including FET for freeze‐all)
7.19
7.19. Analysis
Comparison 7: AMH + AFC + bFSH‐based algorithm versus bFSH‐based algorithm, Outcome 19: Multiple pregnancy in women with clinical pregnancy
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Allegra 2017 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Allegra A, Marino A, Volpes A, Coffaro F, Scaglione P, Gullo A, et al. A randomized controlled trial investigating the use of a predictive nomogram for the selection of the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2017;34(4):429-38. - PubMed
Arce 2014 {published data only}
    1. Arce JC, Andersen AN, Fernandez-Sanchez M, Visnova H, Bosch E, Garcia-Velasco JA, et al. Ovarian response to recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone: a randomized, antimullerian hormone-stratified, dose response trial in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertility and Sterility 2014;102(6):1633-40. - PubMed
Bastu 2016 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Bastu E, Buyru F, Ozsurmeli M, Demiral I, Dogan M, Yeh J. A randomized, single-blind, prospective trial comparing three different gonadotropin doses with or without addition of letrozole during ovulation stimulation in patients with poor ovarian response. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2016;203:30-4. - PubMed
Cavagna 2006 {published data only}
    1. Cavagna M, Dzik A, Freitas GC, Soares JB, De Pawn K, Sales ALM, et al. Comparison of 150 IU and 225 IU of follitropin-beta in a fixed-dose regimen for ovarian stimulation using a depot formulation of GnRH agonist: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida 2006;10(2):21-4.
Harrison 2001 {published data only}
    1. Harrison RF, Jacob S, Spillane H, Mallon E, Hennelly B. A prospective randomized clinical trial of differing starter doses of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin-β) for first time in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment cycles. Fertility and Sterility 2001;75(1):23-31. - PubMed
Hoomans 2002 {published data only}
    1. Hoomans EHM, Mulder BB, on behalf of the Asian Puregon Study Group. A group-comparative, randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacy and efficiency of two fixed daily dose regimens (100- and 200-IU) of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH, Puregon) in Asian women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2002;19(10):470-6. - PMC - PubMed
Ishihara 2021a {published data only}
    1. Ishihara O, Klein BM, Arce J-C, for the Japanese Follitropin Delta Phase 2 Trial Group*. Randomized, assessor-blind, antimullerian hormone–stratified, dose-response trial in Japanese in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta. Fertility and Sterility 2021;115(6):1478-86. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.10.059] - DOI - PubMed
Ishihara 2021b {published data only}
    1. Ishihara O, Arce J-C, for the Japanese Follitropin Delta Phase 3 Trial (STORK) Group. Individualized follitropin delta dosing reduces OHSS risk in Japanese IVF/ICSI patients: a randomized controlled trial. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2021;42(5):909-18. - PubMed
Jayaprakasan 2010 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Jayaprakasan K, Hopkisson J, Campbell B, Johnson I, Thornton J, Raine-Fenning N. A randomised controlled trial of 300 versus 225 IU recombinant FSH for ovarian stimulation in predicted normal responders by antral follicle count. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2010;117:853-62. - PubMed
Klinkert 2005 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJM, Looman CWN, Habbema JDF, te Velde ER. Expected poor responders on the basis of an antral follicle count do not benefit from a higher starting dose of gonadotrophins in IVF treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2005;20(3):611-5. - PubMed
​Lan 2013 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Lan VTN, Linh NK, Tuong HM, Wong PC, Howles CM. Anti-Mullerian hormone versus antral follicle count for defining the starting dose of FSH. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2013;27(4):390-9. - PubMed
Lefebrve 2015 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Lefebvre J, Antaki R, Kadoch IJ, Dean NL, Sylvestre C, Bissonnette F, et al. 450 IU versus 600 IU gonadotropin for controlled ovarian stimulation in poor responders: a randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 2015;104(6):1419-25. - PubMed
Liu 2022 {published data only}
    1. Liu X, Wen W, Tao W, Li T, Na L, Ting S, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in predicted poor responders: an RCT. Human Reproduction 2021;36(Suppl 1):[no pagination]. [PMID: ]
    1. Liu X, Wen W, Wang T, Tian L, Li N, Sun T, et al. Increased versus standard gonadotrophin dosing in predicted poor responders of IVF: an open-label randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2022;37(8):1806-15. - PubMed
Magnusson 2017 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Magnusson Å, Nilsson L, Oleröd G, Thurin-Kjellberg1 A, Bergh C. The addition of anti-Müllerian hormone in an algorithm for individualized hormone dosage did not improve the prediction of ovarian response—a randomized, controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2017;32(4):811-9. - PubMed
Nyboe Andersen 2017 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Nyboe Andersen A, Nelson SM, Fauser BC, García-Velasco JA, Klein BM, Arce JC, ESTHER-1 study group. Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Fertility and Sterility 2017;107(2):387-96. - PubMed
Olivennes 2015 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Olivennes F, Trew G, Borini A, Broekmans F, Arriagada P, Warne DW, Howles CM. Randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority study of the CONSORT algorithm for individualized dosing of follitropin alfa. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2015;30:248-57. - PubMed
Oudshoorn 2017 {published data only}
    1. Oudshoorn SC, Van Tilborg TC, Eijkemans MJ, Oosterhuis GJ, Friederich J, Van Hooff HA, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 2: the predicted hyper responder. Human Reproduction 2017;32(12):2506-14. - PubMed
Out 2004 {published data only}
    1. Out HJ, Rutherford A, Fleming R, Tay CCK, Trew G, Ledger W, et al. A randomized, double-blind, multicentre clinical trial comparing starting doses of 150 and 200 IU of recombinant FSH in women treated with the GnRH antagonist ganirelix for assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction 2004;19(1):90-5. - PubMed
Petersen 2019 {published data only}
    1. Petersen JF, Lokkegaard E, Andersen LF, Torp K, Egeberg A, Hedegaard L, et al. A randomized controlled trial of AMH-based individualized FSH dosing in a GnRH antagonist protocol for IVF. Human Reproduction Open 2019;1:1-11. - PMC - PubMed
Popovic‐Todorovic 2003 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Popovic-Todorovic B, Loft A, Bredkjñer HE, Bangsbùll S, Nielsen IK, Nyboe Andersen A. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing an individual dose of recombinant FSH based on predictive factors versus a 'standard' dose of 150 IU/day in 'standard' patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. Human Reproduction 2003;18(11):2275-82. - PubMed
Qiao 2021 {published data only}
    1. Qiao J, Zhang Y, Liang X, Ho T, Huang H-Y, Kim S-H, et al. A randomised controlled trial to clinically validate follitropin delta in its individualised dosing regimen for ovarian stimulation in Asian IVF/ICSI patients. Human Reproduction 2021;39(9):2452-62. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deab155] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Shyamsunder 2021 {published data only}
    1. Shyamsunder A, Hardy T, Yazdani A, Polyakov A, Norman R, Hart R, et al. Higher doses of FSH used for superovulation do not adversely affect embryonic ploidy: a randomized controlled trial (STimulation Resulting in Embryonic Aneuploidy using Menopur (STREAM) trial). Fertility and Reproduction 2021;3(3):108-14.
Tan 2005 {published data only}
    1. Tan SL, Child TJ, Cheung AP, Fluker MR, Yuzpe A, Casper R, et al. A randomized, double-blind, multicenter study comparing a starting dose of 100 IU or 200 IU of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon R) in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF treatment. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2005;22(2):81-8. - PMC - PubMed
Tasker 2010 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Tasker F, Hamoda H, Wilner H, Grace J, Khalaf Y. A randomised controlled trial comparing cycle outcome of individualised versus standard dosage of recombinant FSH with IVF/ICSI treatment. Human Reproduction 2010;25(Suppl 1):i170-210.
Van Tilborg 2017 {published data only}
    1. Van Tilborg TC, Torrance HL, Oudshoorn SC, Eijkemans MJ, Koks CA, Verhoeve HR, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 1: the predicted poor responder. Human Reproduction 2017;32(12):2496-2505. - PubMed
Yong 2003 {published data only}
    1. Yong PYK, Brett S, Baird DT, Thong KJ. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing 150 IU and 225 IU of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone(Gonal-F*) in a fixed-dose regimen for controlled ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertility and Sterility 2003;79(2):308-15. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Aleyamma 2017 {published data only}
    1. Aleyamma TK, Singhal H, Premkumar PS, Acharya M, Kamath MS, George K. Local endometrial injury in women with failed IVF undergoing a repeat cycle: A randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2017;214:109-114. - PubMed
Berkkanoglu 2010 {published data only}
    1. Berkkanoglu M, Ozgur K. What is the optimum maximal gonadotropin dosage used in microdose flare-up cycles in poor responders? Fertility and Sterility 2010;94(2):662-5. - PubMed
Camier 1999 {published data only}
    1. Camier B. A multicentre, prospective, randomised study to compare low dose protocol versus conventional administration of Rh-FSH (GONAL-F) in normo-responders undergoing ART. Congress of Controversies in Obstestrics, Gynaecology and Infertility 1999;1:7.
Cavagna 2009 {published data only}
    1. Cavagna M, Dzik A, Freitas GC, Soares JB, Donadio N, Cavagna F, et al. A prospective and randomized trial comparing 225IU and 300 IU follitropin-alpha; in a fixed-dose regimen for controlled ovarian stimulation. Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida 2009;24(2):66-70.
CTRI/2012/11/003139 {published data only}
    1. CTRI/2012/11/003139. Compare clinical outcome in conventional ART protocol and novel AMH tailored protocol in ART a prospective randomised controlled trial [To determine whether clinical outcome is better when treatment is decided on basis of age and follicular stimulating hormone as guide to treatment or Antimullerian hormone values in in vitro fertilisation patients]. www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=4633 (first registered 22 November 2012).
DeJong 2000 {published data only}
    1. De Jong D, Macklon NS, Fauser BC. A pilot study involving minimal ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: extending the "follicle-stimulating hormone window" combined with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cetrorelix. Fertility and Sterility 2000;73(5):1051-4. - PubMed
Drakakis 2002 {published data only}
    1. Drakakis P, Loutradis D, Kallianidis K, Milingos S, Dionyssiou Asteriou A, Michalas S. The clinical efficacy of recombinant FSH (r-FSH) as compared to highly purified urinary gonadotrophin (hMG-FD) and the use of a low starting dose of r-FSH in IVF or ICSI. A randomized prospective study. Italian Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics 2002;14(3):64-8.
Fluker 2000 {published data only}
    1. Fluker MR, Copeland JE, Yuzpe AA. A prospective randomized clinical trial of four fixed starting doses of recombinant FSH in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF. Human Reproduction 2000;15:26.
Ghaffari 2018 {published data only}
    1. Ghaffari F, Jahangiri N, Madani T, Khodabakhshi S, Chehrazi M. Randomized controlled trial of gonadotropin- releasing hormone agonist microdose flare- up versus flare- up among poor responders undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2020;148(1):59-64. - PubMed
la Cour Freiesleben 2009 {published data only}
    1. NCT00374634. Individual versus standard follicle stimulating hormone dose for controlled ovarian stimulation and insemination [Individual versus standard RFSH dose for controlled ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination. A prospective randomised multi centre study]. clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00374634 (first posted 11 September 2006).
    1. la Cour Freiesleben N, Lossl K, Bogstad J, Bredkjaer HE, Toft B, Rosendahl M, et al. Individual versus standard dose of rFSH in a mild stimulation protocol for intrauterine insemination: a randomized study. Human Reproduction 2009;24(10):2523-30. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep239] - DOI - PubMed
Latin‐American Puregon IVF Study Group 2001 {published data only}
    1. Latin-American Puregon IVF Study Group. A double-blind clinical trial comparing a fixed daily dose of 150 and 250 IU of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 2001;76(5):950-6. - PubMed
Lawrenz 2022 {published data only}
    1. Lawrenz B, Melado L, Digma S, Sibal J, Coughlana C, Andersen CY, et al. Reintroducing serum FSH measurement during ovarian stimulation for ART. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2022;44(3):548-56. - PubMed
Lobato‐Pascual 2017 {published data only}
    1. Lobato‐Pascual A, Raki M, Greggains G, Fedorcsak P. Gonadotropin endocytosis as a biomarker of optimal FSH dosage-a randomised clinical trial. Human Reproduction 2017;32(Suppl 1):i106-7.
NCT00225433 {published data only}
    1. NCT00225433. Luteal phase FSH in the IVF poor responder [Luteal Phase Recombinant FSH vs. Follicular Phase Recombinant FSH for IVF Stimulation in the Poor Responder]. clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00225433 (first registered 21 September 2005).
NCT01926210 {published data only}
    1. NCT01926210. Comparison of ovarian mild stimulation and controlled ovarian stimulation in poor ovarian responders (POR). clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01926210 (first registered 21 August 2013).
NCT02635607 {published data only}
    1. NCT02635607. Effectiveness and safety study of fixed versus flexible of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol (GnRH) [A RCT study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the fixed day-5 antagonist protocol versus the flexible antagonist protocol for the controlled ovarian stimulation in Chinese women with predicted high ovarian response]. clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02635607 (first posted 21 December 2015).
NCT02915900 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02915900. Optimising FSH dosage during in vitro fertilization (IVF) [Method for determining optimal FSH dosage during in vitro fertilization (IVF)]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02915900 (first received 27 September 2016).
NCT03809221 {published data only}
    1. NCT03809221. The effectiveness and safety of the prolonged down-regulation protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation [The Effectiveness and Safety of the Early Follicular Phase Prolonged Down-regulation Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation: a Randomized, Paralleled, Controlled, Multicenter Trial]. ClinicalTrials.gov (first posted 18 January 2019).
Out 1999 {published data only}
    1. Out HJ, Lindenberg S, Mikkelsen AL, Eldar-Geva T, Healy DL, Leader A, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial to study the efficacy and efficiency of a fixed dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Human Reproduction 1999;14(3):622-7. - PubMed
Out 2000 {published data only}
    1. Out HJ, Braat DD, Lintsen BM, Gurgan T, Bukulmez O, Gökmen O, et al. Increasing the daily dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) does not compensate for the age-related decline in retrievable oocytes after ovarian stimulation. 2000 Human Reproduction;15(1):29-35. - PubMed
Out 2001 {published data only}
    1. Out HJ, David I, Ron-El R, Friedler S, Shalev E, Geslevich J, et al. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial using fixed daily doses of 100 IU or 200 IU of recombinant FSH in ICSI cycles. Human Reproduction 2001;16(6):1104-9. - PubMed
Pruksananonda 2004 {published data only}
    1. Pruksananonda K, Suwajanakorn S, Sereepapong W, Virutamasen P. Comparison of two different fixed doses of follitropin-β in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a prospective randomized, double blind clinical trial. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2004;87(10):1151-5. - PubMed
Rasmussen 2016 {published data only}
    1. Rasmussen BB, Mannaerts B, Klein BM, Helmgaard L, Arce JC, et al, ESTHER-1 trial group. Low immunogenicity potential of follitropin delta, a recombinant FSH preparation produced from a human cell line: results from phase 3 trials (ESTHER-1 and ESTHER-2). In: Abstracts of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. 2016.
Simberg 2000 {published data only}
    1. Simberg N, Rova K, Gudmundsson J, Lundkvist Ö, Lundqvist M, Bekuretsion M, et al. A randomized study comparing Puregon 100 IU or 150 IU as starting dose in IVF treatment. Human Reproduction 2000;Abstract book 1:125.
Tandler‐Schneider 2014 {published data only}
    1. Tandler-Schneider A, Griesinger G, Török A, Kovacs P, Sydow P, Ebert P, et al. Fully human glycooptimized recombinant FSH: a randomized, assessor-blind, multi-center, multi-national phase II trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of FSH-GEX in women undergoing ART. Human Reproduction 2014;29(Suppl 1):i1-i389.
Thomas 2018 {published data only}
    1. Thomas S, Acharya M, Muthukumar K, Chandy A, Kamath MS, Aleyamma TK, et al. Effectiveness of anti-mullerian hormone-tailored protocol compared to conventional protocol in women undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences 2018;11(1):24-8. - PMC - PubMed
Tsagareishvili 2005​ {published data only}
    1. Tsagareishvili G, Khonelidze N, Lazarev A. Results of application of high daily doses of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone in different age groups of women in IVF program. In: Georgian Medical News. Vol. 6. 2005:11. - PubMed
Wikland 2001 {published data only}
    1. Wikland M, Bergh C, Borg K, Hillensjö T, Howles CM, Knutsson A, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison of two starting doses of recombinant FSH in combination with cetrorelix in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Human Reproduction 2001;16(8):1676-81. - PubMed
Youssef 2016 {published data only}
    1. Youssef MA, Wely M, Al-Inany H, Madani T, Jahangiri N, Khodabakhshi S, et al. A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF: a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial. Human Reproduction 2017;32(1):112-8. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Fernandez 2019 {published data only}
    1. Fernández-Sánchez M, Visnova H, Yuzpe A, Klein BM, Mannaerts B, Arce JC. Individualization of the starting dose of follitropin delta reduces the overall OHSS risk and/or the need for additional preventive interventions: cumulative data over three stimulation cycles. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2019;38(4):528-37. - PubMed
Fernandez 2022 {published data only}
    1. Fernandez Sanchez M, Larsson P, Ferrando Serrano M, Bosch E, García Velasco JA, Santamaría López E, et al. Live birth rates following individualized dosing algorithm of follitropin delta in a long GnRH agonist protocol. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 2023;21:45. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fernandez Sanchez M, Larsson P, Ferrando Serrano M, Bosch E, García Velasco JA, Santamaría López E, et al. The individualised dosing algorithm of follitropin delta, developed in a GnRH antagonist protocol, shows to be highly effective in a long GnRH agonist protocol. Human Reproduction 2022;37(Suppl 1):i7.
Janse 2021 {published data only}
    1. Janse F, Eijkemans M, Fauser B. Improved safety and efficiency of individualised versus conventional gonadotropin dosing for ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI: an individual patient meta-analysis (IPD-MA). Human Reproduction;36(Suppl 1):[no pagination]. [PMID: ]
Yang 2022 {published data only}
    1. Yang R, Zhang Y, Liang X, Song X, Wei Z, Liu J, et al. Comparative clinical outcome following individualized follitropin delta dosing in Chinese women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 2022;20(1):147. [DOI: 10.1186/s12958-022-01016-y] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

CTRI/2016/10/007367 {unpublished data only}
    1. CTRI/2016/10/007367. Phase III study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of recombinant human FSH of Cadila Healthcare Limited, India as compared to Gonal-F administered subcutaneously in female patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology [A Phase III, Randomized, Open-Label, Multiple-Dose, Parallel-Group Study to Evaluate the Efficacy, Safety, Pharmacokinetics and Immunogenicity of Recombinant Human FSH of Cadila Healthcare Limited, India as compared to Gonal-F TM Administered Subcutaneously in Female Patients Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technology]. ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=16431&EncHid=&u... (first received 14 October 2016).
NCT01794208 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT01794208. Efficacy and safety of FSH-GEX™ in comparison with 150 IU Gonal-f®. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01794208 (first received 18 February 2013).
NCT02430740 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02430740. Tailored ovarian stimulation based on BMI, AMH, AFC. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02430740 (first received 30 April 2015).
NCT02739269 {published data only}
    1. NCT02739269. Antimullerian hormone versus antral follicle count for determination of gonadotropin dosing in IVF. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02739269 (first received 15 April 2016).
NCT03914651 {published data only}
    1. NCT03914651. CLBR per initial cycle with different starting dose in aged patients with poor ovarian reservation: 300IU versus 150IU. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03914651 (first received 16 April 2019).
NCT05103228 {published data only}
    1. NCT05103228. Cumulative pregnancy rate with lower and higher gonadotropin dose during IVF among poor responders. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05103228 (first received 2 November 2021).
Singh 2015 {published data only}
    1. Singh M, Singh R, Jindal A, Jindal PC. A prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the role of AMH tailored stimulation protocols (Agonist or Antagonist), in improving IVF outcome in previous failed cycles. Human Reproduction 2015;30:i419-20, P-699.

Additional references

Alam 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Alam V. Query on trial: CONSORT vs 150 for FSH dosing. Email to: Lensen S 31 May 2017.
Aljawoan 2012
    1. Aljawoan FY, Hunt LP, Gordon UD. Prediction of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in coasted patients in an IVF/ICSI program. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences 2012;5(1):32-6. - PMC - PubMed
Andersen 2006
    1. Andersen AN, Devroey P, Arce JC. Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2006;21(12):3217-27. - PubMed
Arce 2013
    1. Arce JC, La Marca A, Mirner Klein B, Nyboe Andersen A, Fleming R. Antimüllerian hormone in gonadotropin releasing-hormone antagonist cycles: prediction of ovarian response and cumulative treatment outcome in good-prognosis patients. Fertility and Sterility 2013;99(6):1644-53. - PubMed
ASRM 2016
    1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Prevention and treatment of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a guideline. Fertility and Sterility 2016;106:1634-47. - PubMed
Bastu 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Bastu E. Query on trial: 450 vs 300 IU FSH. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016. Email to: Lensen S 15 May 2017.
Berkkanoglu 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Berkkanoglu M. Query on trial: 600 vs 450 vs 300 IU FSH. Fertility and sterility 2010. Email to: Lensen S 4 May 2017.
Bourgain 2003
    1. Bourgain C, Devroey P. The endometrium in stimulated cycles for IVF. Human Reproduction Update 2003;9:515-22. - PubMed
Broekmans 2006
    1. Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Human Reproduction Update 2006;12:685-718. - PubMed
Broekmans 2010
    1. Broekmans FJ, Ziegler D, Howles CM, Gougeon A, Trew G, Olivennes F. The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertility and Sterility 2010;94(3):1044-51. - PubMed
Broekmans 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Broekmans F. Query on trial: Klinkert 2005. Email to: Lensen S 20 May 2017.
Broer 2013a
    1. Broer SL, Dólleman M, Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt PM, et al. Prediction of an excessive response in in vitro fertilization from patient characteristics and ovarian reserve tests and comparison in subgroups: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertility and Sterility 2013;100(2):420-9. - PubMed
Broer 2013b
    1. Broer SL, Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt P, et al, on behalf of the IMPORT study group. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Human Reproduction Update 2013;19(1):26-36. - PubMed
Broer 2014
    1. Broer SL, Broekmans FJM, Laven JSE, Fauser BCJM. Anti-Müllerian hormone: ovarian reserve testing and its potential clinical implications. Human Reproduction Update 2014;20(5):688-701. - PubMed
Calhaz‐Jorge 2016
    1. Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka MS, de Mouzon, Erb K, Mocanu E, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2012: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction 2016;31(8):1638-52. - PubMed
Dyer 2016
    1. Dyer S, Chambers GM, De Mouzon J, Nygren KG, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, et al. International committee for monitoring assisted reproductive technologies world report: Assisted reproductive technology 2008, 2009 and 2010. Human Reproduction 2016;31(7):1588-1690. - PubMed
Fauser 2017
    1. Fauser BCJM. Patient-tailored ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 2017;108(4):585-91. - PubMed
Ferraretti 2011
    1. Ferraretti A, La Marca A, Fauser BCJM, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L. ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Human Reproduction 2011;26(7):1616-24. - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT 2014 [Computer program]
    1. GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 1 June 2017. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2014. Available at gradepro.org.
Gunby 2010
    1. Gunby J, Bissonnette F, Librach C, Cowan L. Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2006 results from the Canadian ART Register. Fertility and Sterility 2010;93:2189-201. - PubMed
Hamoda 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Hamoda H. Query on trial: individualised versus standard dosage of recombinant FSH. Email to: Lensen S 27 March 2017.
Harbin Consensus Workshop Group 2014
    1. Harbin Consensus Workshop Group. Improving the Reporting of Clinical Trials of Infertility Treatments (IMPRINT): modifying the CONSORT statement. Human Reproduction 2014;29(10):2075-82. - PMC - PubMed
Harris 2016
    1. Harris K, Fitzgerald O, Paul RC, Macaldowie A, Lee E, Chambers GM. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2014. Sydney: National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, the University of New South Wales, 2016.
Helmgaard 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Helmgaard L. Query on trial: Arce 2017. Email to: Lensen S 7 July 2017.
Helmgaard 2017b [pers comm]
    1. Helmgaard L. n/a. Email to: Lensen S 7 July 2017.
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2008
    1. Higgins JP, White IR, Anzures-Cabera J. Meta-analysis of skewed data: combining results reported on log-transformed or raw scales. Statistics in Medicine 2008;27:6072-92. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Jayaprakasan 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Jayaprakasan K. Query on trial: 225 v 300 IU FSH. 2010. Email to: Lensen S 30 May 2017.
Kawwass 2015
    1. Kawwass JF, Kissin DM, Kulkarni AD, Creanga AA, Session DR, Callaghan WM, et al. Safety of assisted reproductive technology in the United States, 2000-2011. JAMA 2015;313(1):88. - PubMed
Kolibianakis 2002
    1. Kolibianakis E, Bourgain C, Albano C, Osmanagaoglu K, Smitz J, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Effect of ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonists, and human chorionic gonadotropin on endometrial maturation on the day of oocyte pick-up. Fertility and Sterility 2002;78:1025-9. - PubMed
Kupka 2014
    1. Kupka MS, Ferraretti AP, Mouzon J, Erb K, D'Hooghe T, Castilla JA, et al. European IVF-Monitoring Consortium, for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction 2014;29(10):2099-113.
La Marca 2012
    1. La Marca A, Papeleo E, Grisendi V, Argento C, Giulini S, Volpe A. Development of a nomogram based on markers of ovarian reserve for the individualisation of the follicle-stimulating hormone starting dose in in vitro fertilisation cycles. BJOG 2012;119(10):1171-9. - PubMed
La Marca 2014
    1. La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Human Reproduction Update 2014;20(1):124-40. - PubMed
La Marca 2017
    1. La Marca A, Minasi MG, Sighinolfi G, Greco P, Argento C, Grisendi V, et al. Female age, serum antimüllerian hormone level, and number of oocytes affect the rate and number of euploid blastocysts in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertility and Sterility 2017;108(5):777-83. - PubMed
La Marca 2017 [pers comm]
    1. La Marca A. Query on trial: Nomogram for FSH dosing 2017. Email to: Lensen S 24 March 2017.
Labarta 2017
    1. Labarta E, Bosch E, Mercader A, Alamá P, Mateu E, Pellicer A. A higher ovarian response after stimulation for IVF is related to a higher number of euploid embryos. BioMed Research International 2017;2017:5637923. - PMC - PubMed
Lan 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Lan TN. Query on trial: AMH vs AFC trial for FSH dosing. Email to: Lensen S 18 May 2017.
Lefebvre 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Lefebvre J. Query on trial: 450 vs 600 IU FSH. Lefebvre 2015. Email to: Lensen S 15 May 2017.
Lefebvre 2022
    1. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Featherstone R, Littlewood A, Marshall C, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Lekamge 2008
    1. Lekamge DN, Lane M, Gilchrist RB, Tremellen KP. Increased gonadotrophin stimulation does not improve IVF outcomes in patients with predicted poor ovarian reserve. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2008;25(11-12):515-21. - PMC - PubMed
Magnusson 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Magnusson A. Query on trial: Use of AMH in an algorithm for IVF. HR 2017. Email to: Lensen S 17 May 2017.
McGowan 1985
    1. McGowan MR, Braithwaite M, Jochle W, Maplecoft RJ. Superovulation of beef heifers with Pergonal (HMG): a dose response trial. Theriogenology 1985;24(2):173-84. - PubMed
O'Brien 1979
    1. O'Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979;35(3):549-57. - PubMed
Popovic‐Todorovic 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Popovic-Todorovic B. Query on trial 150 vs 100-250 FSH for IVF. Email to: Lensen S 31 May 2017.
Roberts 2005
    1. Roberts R, Iatropoulou A, Ciantar D, Stark J, Becker DL, Franks S, et al. Follicle-stimulating hormone affects metaphase I chromosome alignment and increases aneuploidy in mouse oocytes matured in vitro. Biology of Reproduction 2005;72(1):107-18. - PubMed
Rustamov 2017
    1. Rustamov O, Wilkinson J, La Marca A, Fitzgerald C, Roberts SA. How much variation in oocyte yield after controlled ovarian stimulation can be explained? A multilevel modelling study. Human Reproduction Open 2017;2017(3):1-10. - PMC - PubMed
Seifer 2002
    1. Seifer DB, MacLaughlin DT, Christian BP, Feng B, Shelden RM. Early follicular serum müllerian-inhibiting substance levels are associated with ovarian response during assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertility and Sterility 2002;77(3):468-71. - PubMed
Sterrenburg 2011
    1. Sterrenburg MD, Veltman-Verhulst SM, Eijkemans MJC, Hughes EG, Macklon NS, Broekmans FJ, et al. Clinical outcomes in relation to the daily dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization in presumed normal responders younger than 39 years: a meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update 2011;17(2):184-96. - PubMed
Steward 2014
    1. Steward RG, Lan L, Shah AA, Yeh JS, Price TM, Goldfarb JM, et al. Oocyte number as a predictor for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and live birth: an analysis of 256,381 in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertility and Sterility 2014;101(4):967-73. - PubMed
Sugano 1997
    1. Sugano M, Watanabe S. Use of highly purified porcine FSH preparation for superovulation in Japanese black cattle. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 1997;59(3):223-5. - PubMed
Sunkara 2011
    1. Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Human Reproduction 2011;26(7):1768-74. - PubMed
Tajik 2013
    1. Tajik P, Zwinderman AH, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM. Trial designs for personalizing cancer care: a systematic review and classification. Clinical Cancer Research 2013;19(17):4578-88. - PubMed
Thoma 2013
    1. Thoma ME, McLain AC, Louis JF, King RB, Trumble AC, Sundaram R. Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertility and Sterility 2013;99(5):1324-31. - PMC - PubMed
Thong 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Thong KJ. Query on trial: 150 v 225 IU FSH. Yong 2003. Email to: Lensen S 13 April 2017.
Ting 2009
    1. Ting PY, Wen XY. The influence of FSH on the aneuploidy rate of human in vitro matured oocytes. Fertility and Sterility 2009;92(3):S14.
Toftager 2017
    1. Toftager M, Bogstad J, Lossl K, Praetorius L, Zedeler A, Bryndorf T, et al. Cumulative live birthrates after one ART cycle including all subsequent frozen-thaw cycles in 1050 women: secondary outcome of an RCT comparing GnRH-antagonist and GnRH-agonist protocols. Human Reproduction 2017;32(3):556-67. - PubMed
Torrance 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Torrance H. Query on van Tilborg 2017. Email to: Lensen S 12 September 2017.
Trew 2017 [pers comm]
    1. Trew G. Query on study: Out 2004. Email to: Lensen S 18 April 2017.
Vail 2003
    1. Vail A, Gardener E. Common statistical errors in the design and analysis of subfertility trials. Human Reproduction 2003;18:1000-4. - PubMed
Van Rooij 2002
    1. Van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, te Velde ER, Fauser BC, Bancsi LF, Jong FH, et al. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Human Reproduction 2002;17(12):3065-71. - PubMed
Van Tilborg 2016
    1. Van Tilborg TC, Broekmans FJM, Dolleman M, Eijkemans MJC, Mol BW, Laven JSE. Individualized follicle-stimulating hormone dosing and in vitro fertilization outcome in agonist downregulated cycles: a systematic review. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2016;95:1333-44. - PubMed
Visser 2006
    1. Visser JA, Jong FH, Laven JS, Themmen AP. Anti-Müllerian hormone: a new marker for ovarian function. Reproduction 2006;131(1):1-9. - PubMed
Wong 2017
    1. Wong KM, Wely M, Mol F, Repping S, Mastenbroek S. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 3. Art. No: CD011184. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011184.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Youssef 2016
    1. Youssef M, Mourad S. Volume expanders for the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 11. Art. No: CD001302. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001302] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Lensen 2017
    1. Lensen SF, Wilkinson J, Mol BW, La Marca A, Torrance H, Broekmans FJ. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 6. Art. No: CD012693. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012693] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Lensen 2018
    1. Lensen SF, Wilkinson J, Leijdekkers JA, La Marca A, Mol BW, Marjoribanks J, et al. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 2. Art. No: CD012693. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012693.pub2] [PMID: ] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources