4.6 Review

Effect of androgen supplementation or modulation on ovarian stimulation outcome in poor responders: a meta-analysis

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 545-555

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.01.015

Keywords

androgens; controlled studies; IVF; poor responders; pregnancy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many trials have evaluated the use of androgen supplements and androgen-modulating agents to improve outcome of poor responders undergoing IVF treatment. This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials of androgen adjuvants (testosterone, dehydroepiandrostereone) and the androgen-modulating agent (letrozole) in poor responders undergoing IVF treatment. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ISRCTN Register and ISI proceedings. All randomized and non-randomized controlled trials were included. Study selection, quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. The main outcome measure was clinical pregnancy rate. The secondary outcome measures were dose and duration of gonadotrophin use, cycles cancelled before oocyte retrieval, oocytes retrieved and ongoing pregnancy rates. A total of 2481 cycles in women considered as poor responders undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment were included in nine controlled trials. Meta-analyses of these studies did not show any significant difference in the number of oocytes retrieved and ongoing pregnancy/live-birth rates with androgen supplementation or modulation compared with the control groups. There is currently insufficient evidence from the few randomized controlled trials to support the use of androgen supplementation or modulation to improve live birth outcome in poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. (C) 2011, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available