Fertility and Sterility
Volume 77, Issue 4 , Pages 711-714 , April 2002

Updated meta-analysis of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus urinary FSH for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction

Presented at “Optimizing Ovulation Induction in ART: A Consensus Meeting,” Santa Monica, California, August 18–20, 2000.

  • Salim Daya (M.B.)

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Salim Daya, M.B., Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 3Z5 (FAX: 905-524-2911)
    • McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Received 29 March 2001 ,Revised 28 November 2001 ,Accepted 28 November 2001.

References 

  1. Daya S, Gunby J. Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2207–2215
  2. Daya S, Gunby J. Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction cycles. In: The Cochrane library. issue 1. Oxford: Update Software; 2001;
  3. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Vol 1.. Lyon, France: AIRC Scientific Publications; 1980;
  4. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–634
  5. Berger E, Chabloz P, DeQuay N, Sann A, Walton S, Germond M, et al.  An open, randomized, group-comparative bi-centre study comparing recombinant FSH Follitropin β 150 IU and highly purified urinary FSH 225 IU as a fixed dose regimen in IVF/ICSI treatment. [abstract no O-112] Hum Reprod. 1999;14:61–62
  6. Ferraretti AB, Gianaroli L, Magli C, Feliciani E, Gergolet M, Fortini D. Recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in non–down regulated poorly responding patients. [abstract no P196] In: Abstract book, 11th World Congress of In Vitro Fertilization and Human Reproductive Genetics. Bologna, Italy: Monduzzi; 1999;p. 263
  7. Ghosh S, Chattopadhyay R, Goswami S, Chakravarty BN. Recombinant FSH versus highly purified urinary FSH—our experience. [abstract no P197] In: Abstract book, 11th World Congress of In Vitro Fertilization and Human Reproductive Genetics. Bologna, Italy: Monduzzi; 1999;p. 264
  8. Gordon UD, Gordon AC, Bonnar J, Harrison RF. A randomized prospective study of the effect of LH on follicular growth and development. [abstract no O-108] Hum Reprod. 1997;12:52
  9. Kornilov NV, Shylkova SA, Loginova JA, Tomas C, Ashorn RG. Comparison of four different gonadotropins for ovarian stimulation in IVF treatment. In: 11th World Congress of In Vitro Fertilization and Human Reproductive Genetics. Bologna, Italy: Monduzzi; 1999;p. 379–383
  10. Machado MG, Borges de Souza MC, Oliveira JBA, Henriques CA, Mancebo ACA. Highly purified gonadotropin and recombinant gonadotropin (study in IVF cycles). Gynecol Endocrinol. 1999;13(Suppl 13):37
  11. Hoomans EHM, Nyboe Andersen A, Loft A, Leerentveld RA, van Kamp AA, Zech H. A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing 150 IU recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) and 225 IU highly purified urinary follicle stimulating hormone (Metrodin-HP) in a fixed-dose regimen in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2442–2447
  12. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867–872
  13. Daya S, Ledger W, Auray JP, Duru G, Silverberg K, Wikland M, et al.  Cost-effectiveness modeling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2563–2569

PII: S0015-0282(01)03246-0

Fertility and Sterility
Volume 77, Issue 4 , Pages 711-714 , April 2002

Article Tools