MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Danazol for unexplained subfertility

2007· review· en· W2068891776 on OpenAlexaff
Edward G. Hughes, Julie Brown, G Tiffin

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanazolUnexplained infertilityMedicineEndometriosisInternal medicineInfertilityBiologyPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The synthetic androgen Danazol, was developed in the 1970's as a treatment for endometriosis. Its use was soon advocated in women with unexplained subfertility. Two randomised trials were subsequently conducted to assess the effectiveness of danazol in this population. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effect of danazol on live birth rate in women with unexplained subfertility. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Sub-fertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched November , 2006) the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE (1966-November 2006), EMBASE (1980 - November 2006) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of danazol compared with placebo or no treatment in women with unexplained subfertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two reviewers EH and GT. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials involving seventy-one women were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the live birth/ ongoing pregnancy rate between danazol and placebo at the end of treatment (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.0 to 8.29; P=0.36) or at the end of follow-up (OR 2.41; 95% CI 0.59, 9.82; P=0.22). There was no significant difference in clinical pregnancies following treatment (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01, 2.26; P=0.17), however there were significantly more clinical pregnancies during the follow-up period in the danazol group compared with the placebo group (OR 3.15, 95%CI 0.98, 10.10; P<0.05). Multiple side effects were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available data demonstrate no evidence of the benefit of danazol for unexplained subfertility. Although there is insufficient evidence to be certain of this, the need for contraception during treatment and the adverse effects and costs of danazol, make its use for this problem unwarranted. The increased pregnancy rate in the long term follow-up data may be attributable to additional therapies and did not influence the live birth/ongoing pregnancy data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.211
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207