Aspirin in women undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Khairy, Mohammed; Banerjee, Kaberi; El‐Toukhy, Tarek; Coomarasamy, Arri; Khalaf, Yakoub

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.080

Cited by 76 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Results from other investigators have been similar (11). However, in accordance with a study by Moini et al (12), we observed a difference between the incidence of severe OHSS in the aspirin-treated and nontreated groups.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Low-dose aspirin therapy to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Várnagy

Bódis

Mánfai

et al. 2010

Fertility and Sterility

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Low-dose aspirin therapy to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Várnagy

Bódis

Mánfai

et al. 2010

Fertility and Sterility

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Noteworthy, another recently published meta-analysis on the use of aspirin in IVF that used the fixed-effects model for their analysis reached conclusions similar to ours (Khairy et al, 2007).…”

supporting

confidence: 77%

Reply: ‘Is it time for meta-analysis?’

Gelbaya

Kyrgiou

Nardo

2008

Human Reproduction Update

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is it time for a meta-analysis?Sir, Recent issue of the Hum Reprod Update included a meta-analysis by that systematically evaluated the current state of evidence regarding the effects of aspirin in IVF. The authors found non-significant point estimates for pregnancy, miscarriage and cancellation rates with confidence intervals overlapping the null hypothesis. Based on these results, the authors concluded that aspirin has no effect on pregnancy in IVF and as a result, suggest abandoning the treatment in clinical practice. We question the approach employed by these authors and, more importantly, suggest they have reached a flawed interpretation of their results.The random-effects modelling used by Gelbaya et al. has received much criticism in the published literature (Peto, 1987;Petitti, 1994). Random-effects models have an inherent loss of precision by introducing an in-between study variance, and make the dubious assumption that the set of trials included in the

show abstract

“…In the past year, three meta-analyses were published (20)(21)(22) that tried to sum up the results of these studies. As a result of different selection criteria and different models of analysis, these meta-analyses still do not supply a final answer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%