Oral anti-oestrogens and medical adjuncts for subfertility associated with anovulation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Infertility due to anovulation is a common problem in women. The first line oral treatment is with anti-oestrogens, such as clomiphene citrate. Unfortunately there may be resistance and alternative and adjunctive treatments have been developed. These include tamoxifen, dexamethasone, bromocriptine and aromatase inhibitors (AIs). OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative effectiveness of anti-oestrogen agents, with or without medical adjuncts, in women with WHO group 2 anovulation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trial register (searched 5th July 2004), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 2 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2004) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2004) for identification of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Additionally the United Kingdom National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines and the references of relevant reviews and RCTs were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs that compare oral anti-oestrogen agents for ovulation induction (alone or in conjunction with medical adjuncts) in anovulatory subfertility, were considered for inclusion in the review. Metformin and other insulin sensitizing agents were not included. Hyperprolactinaemic infertility was not included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and quality assessment was done independently by two reviewers. The primary outcome was live birth, secondary outcomes were: pregnancy, ovulation, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, overstimulation, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and patient reported adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were found and included in this review. No trials reported live birth as an outcome. Miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates were poorly reported. Clomiphene was shown to be effective in increasing pregnancy rate when compared to placebo (fixed OR 5.8, 95% CI 1.6 to 21.5; NNT 5.9, 95% CI 3.6 to 16.7). No evidence of a difference in effect was found between clomiphene and tamoxifen (fixed OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.5 to 2.1). The use of clomiphene in combination with tamoxifen did not find any evidence of effect on pregnancy rate when compared to clomiphene alone (fixed OR 3.3, 95% CI 0.1 to 91.6). The comparison between two AIs (letrozole and anastrozole) did not find any evidence of a difference in effect on pregnancy rate (fixed OR 1.9, 95% CI 0.4 to 8.9). For the intervention of clomiphene plus ketoconazole vs clomiphene no evidence of a difference in effect for pregnancy rate was found (fixed OR 2.4, 95% CI 0.9 to 6.4). For clomiphene plus bromocriptine vs clomiphene no evidence of a difference in effect on pregnancy rate was found (fixed OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.3 to 3.0) rates. However, clomiphene plus dexamethasone treatment resulted in a significant improvement in the pregnancy rate (fixed OR 11.3, 95% CI 5.3 to 24.0; NNT 2.7, 95% CI 2.1 to 3.6) when compared to clomiphene alone as did clomiphene plus pretreatment with combined oral contraceptives (fixed OR 27.2, 95% CI 3.1 to 235.0; NNT 2.0, 95% CI 1.4 to 3.4). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows evidence supporting the effectiveness of the current first line treatment, clomiphene citrate. No evidence of a difference in effect was found between clomiphene and tamoxifen. The use of dexamethasone as an adjunct to clomiphene therapy appears promising as do combined oral contraceptives. This review has highlighted a gap in the literature on effects of these drugs on outcomes such as miscarriage rate. Evidence in favour of these interventions is flawed. RCTs of adequate power and of high methodological quality are required for the older treatments such as clomiphene, alone and with medical adjuncts, and also for the newer drugs such as the AIs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,018 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».