Search

Background: Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of pain and infertility associated with endometriosis., Search Methods: This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group including searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, reference lists for relevant trials, and trial registries from inception to April 2020., Selection Criteria: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment, or diagnostic laparoscopy only., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently performed selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. We collected data for the core outcome set for endometriosis. Primary outcomes included overall pain and live birth. We evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods., Main Results: We included 14 RCTs. The studies randomised 1563 women with endometriosis. Four RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with laparoscopic ablation or excision and uterine suspension. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation with diagnostic laparoscopy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation with laparoscopic excision. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with helium thermal coagulator with laparoscopic ablation or excision with electrodiathermy. One RCT compared conservative laparoscopic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal resection of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and poor reporting of outcome data. Laparoscopic treatment versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain scores compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only at six months (mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.49; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence) and at 12 months (MD 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.19; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence), where a positive value means pain relief (the higher the score, the more pain relief) and a negative value reflects pain increase (the lower the score, the worse the increase in pain). No studies looked at live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on quality of life compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only: EuroQol-5D index summary at six months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence), 12-item Short Form (SF-12) mental health component (MD 2.30, 95% CI -4.50 to 9.10; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence) and SF-12 physical health component (MD 2.70, 95% CI -2.90 to 8.30; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence). Laparoscopic treatment probably improves viable intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (odds ratio (OR) 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86; 3 RCTs, 528 participants; I 2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only on ectopic pregnancy (MD 1.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 13.48; 1 RCT, 100 participants; low quality evidence) and miscarriage (MD 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54; 2 RCTs, 112 participants; low quality evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse events. No conversions to laparotomy were reported in both groups (1 RCT, 341 participants). Laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection on adverse events (more specifically vascular injury) compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32; 1 RCT, 141 participants; low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. Laparoscopic ablation versus laparoscopic excision There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in overall pain, measured at 12 months, for laparoscopic ablation compared with laparoscopic excision (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 103 participants; very low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores at six months, live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events. Helium thermal coagulator versus electrodiathermy We are uncertain whether helium thermal coagulator compared to electrodiathermy improves quality of life using the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) at nine months, when considering the components: pain (MD 6.68, 95% CI -3.07 to 16.43; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), control and powerlessness (MD 4.79, 95% CI -6.92 to 16.50; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), emotional well-being (MD 6.17, 95% CI -3.95 to 16.29; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence) and social support (MD 5.62, 95% CI -6.21 to 17.45; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence). Adverse events were not estimable. No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage., Authors' Conclusions: Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. No data were reported on live birth. There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. No studies were found that looked at live birth for any of the comparisons. Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Within the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, pandemics impact upon women's assessment and treatment by healthcare providers., Objectives: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews evaluating interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding that are commonly available during pandemics., Methods: We sought published Cochrane Reviews, evaluating interventions that can continue during pandemics for women with heavy menstrual bleeding with no known underlying cause. We identified Cochrane Reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in June 2020. The primary outcome was menstrual bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, side effects, and serious adverse events. We undertook the selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods., Main Results: We included four Cochrane Reviews, with 11 comparisons, data from 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and 3196 women. We assessed all the reviews to be high quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) NSAIDs may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (mean difference (MD) -124 mL per cycle, 95% confidence interval (CI) -186 to -62 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 11 women; low-certainty evidence). Mefenamic acid may be similar to naproxen (MD 21 mL per cycle, 95% CI -6 to 48 mL per cycle; 2 RCTs, 61 women; low-certainty evidence), and NSAIDs may be similar to combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding (MD 25 mL per cycle, 95% CI -22 to 73 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 26 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be be less effective in reducing menstrual bleeding than antifibrinolytics (relative risk (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 2 RCTs, 161 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs reduce menstrual blood loss more than short-cycle progestogens (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 1 RCT 32 women; very low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics Antifibrinolytics appear to be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (MD -53 mL per cycle, 95% CI -63 to -44 mL per cycle; 4 RCTs, 565 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 297 women; low-certainty evidence), and they are probably similar on the incidence of serious adverse events (thrombotic events; RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.46; 2 RCT, 468 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than short-cycle progestogen (MD -111 mL per cycle, 95% CI -178 mL to -44 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 46 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to short-cycle progestogens on quality of life (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-certainty evidence), patient satisfaction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.39; 1 RCT, 42 women; very low-certainty evidence), or side effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 211 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle progestogen (MD -9 points per cycle, 95% CI -30 to 12 points per cycle; 2 RCTs, 184 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may increase self-reported improvement in menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle medroxyprogesterone acetate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61; 1 RCT, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to long-cycle progestogens on quality of life (MD 5, 95% CI -2.49 to 12.49; 1 RCT, 90 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to long-cycle progestogens on side effects (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.00; 2 RCTs, 184 women; very low-certainty evidence). There were no trials comparing antifibrinolytics to combined hormonal contraceptives. Combined hormonal contraceptives Combined hormonal contraceptives appear to be more effective for heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo or no treatment (RR 13.25, 95% CI 2.94 to 59.64; 2 RCTs, 363 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Combined hormonal contraceptives are probably similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.60; 2 RCTs, 411 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Progestogens There were no trials comparing progestogens to placebo. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary RCTs, inconsistency between the primary RCTs, and imprecision in effect estimates., Authors' Conclusions: There is moderate-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics and combined hormonal contraceptives reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with NSAIDs and short-cycle progestogens, but we are unable to draw conclusions about the effects of antifibrinolytics compared to long-cycle progestogens, on low-certainty evidence., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Diagnoses of endometrial cancer are increasing secondary to the rising prevalence of obesity. Obesity plays an important role in promoting the development of endometrial cancer, by inducing a state of unopposed oestrogen excess, insulin resistance and inflammation. It also affects treatment, increasing the risk of surgical complications and the complexity of radiotherapy planning, and may additionally impact on subsequent survival. Weight-loss interventions have been associated with improvements in breast and colorectal cancer-specific survival as well as a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease, a frequent cause of death in endometrial cancer survivors., Objectives: To determine the impact of weight-loss interventions, in addition to standard management of endometrial cancer, on overall survival and the frequency of adverse events.Secondary objectives include an assessment of weight-loss interventions on endometrial cancer-specific survival, weight loss achieved, cardiovascular event frequency and quality of life both overall and stratified according to patient body mass index (BMI), where possible., Search Methods: This review searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and reference lists of articles, trial registries, and international gynaecological oncology conference abstracts from inception to January 2018., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to facilitate weight loss in overweight or obese women undergoing treatment for, or previously treated for, endometrial cancer were selected., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial quality, and extracted data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing data, including details of any adverse events., Main Results: We included three RCTs in the review, randomising a total of 161 overweight and obese women with endometrial cancer. All studies compared combined behavioural and lifestyle interventions to facilitate weight loss through dietary modification and increased physical activity. The included RCTs were of low or very low quality, due to high risk of bias by failing to blind participants, personnel and outcome assessors, and significant loss to follow-up (attrition rate up to 29%).Combined behaviour and lifestyle interventions were not associated with improved overall survival (risk ratio (RR mortality), 0.23 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 4.55, P = 0.34, one RCT, 37 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care at 24 months. There was no evidence that such interventions were associated with improvements in cancer-specific survival or cardiovascular event frequency as no cancer-related deaths, myocardial infarctions or strokes were reported in the included studies. None of the included RCTs reported data for the outcome of recurrence-free survival. Combined behaviour and lifestyle interventions were not associated with significant weight loss at either six months (mean difference (MD) -1.88 kg, 95% CI -5.98 to 2.21 kg, P = 0.37, three RCTs, 131 participants, I 2 = 0%; low-certainty evidenc e)or 12 months (MD -8.98 kg, 95% CI -19.88 to 1.92 kg, P = 0.11, two RCTs, 91 participants, I 2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) when compared with usual care. Combined behaviour and lifestyle interventions were not associated with increased quality of life, when measured using either the SF-12 Physical Health questionnaire or FACT-G at six months (FACT-G MD 2.51, 95% CI -5.61 to 10.64, P = 0.54, two RCTs, 95 participants, I 2 = 83%; very low-certainty evidence), or by FACT-G alone at 12 months (MD 2.77, 95% CI -0.65 to 6.20, P = 0.11, two RCTs, 89 participants, I 2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) when compared with usual care. No serious adverse events, for example hospitalisation or deaths, were reported in included trials. Lifestyle and behavioural interventions were associated with a higher risk of musculoskeletal symptoms (RR 19.03, 95% CI 1.17, 310.52, P = 0.04, two RCTs, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: There is currently insufficient high-quality evidence to determine the effect of combined lifestyle and behavioural interventions on survival, quality of life, or significant weight loss in women with a history of endometrial cancer compared to those receiving usual care. The limited evidence suggests that there is little or no serious or life-threatening adverse effects due to these interventions, although musculoskeletal problems were increased, presumably due to increased activity levels. Our conclusion is based on low- and very low-quality evidence from a small number of trials and very few patients. We therefore have very little confidence in the evidence: the true effect of weight-loss interventions in obese women with endometrial cancer is currently not known.Further methodologically-rigorous, adequately-powered RCTs are required with follow-up of 5 to 10 years duration. These should focus on the effects of varying dietary modification regimens, pharmacological treatments associated with weight loss and bariatric surgery on survival, quality of life, weight loss and adverse events.

Background: In high resource settings, 1 in 10 newborn babies require admission to a neonatal unit. Research evaluating neonatal care involves recording and reporting many different outcomes and outcome measures. Such variation limits the usefulness of research as studies cannot be compared or combined. To address these limitations, we aim to develop, disseminate and implement a core outcome set for neonatal medicine., Methods: A steering group that includes parents and former patients, healthcare professionals and researchers has been formed to guide the development of the core outcome set. We will review neonatal trials systematically to identify previously reported outcomes. Additionally, we will specifically identify outcomes of importance to parents, former patients and healthcare professionals through a systematic review of qualitative studies. Outcomes identified will be entered into an international, multi-perspective eDelphi survey. All key stakeholders will be invited to participate. The Delphi method will encourage individual and group stakeholder consensus to identify a core outcome set. The core outcome set will be mapped to existing, routinely recorded data where these exist., Discussion: Use of a core set will ensure outcomes of importance to key stakeholders, including former patients and parents, are recorded and reported in a standard fashion in future research. Embedding the core outcome set within future clinical studies will extend the usefulness of research to inform practice, enhance patient care and ultimately improve outcomes. Using routinely recorded electronic data will facilitate implementation with minimal addition burden., Trial Registration Number: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database: 842 (www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/842)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Hysteroscopy is increasingly performed in an outpatient setting. The primary reason for failure is pain. There is no consensus upon the routine use of analgesia during hysteroscopy., Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of different types of pharmacological interventions for pain relief in patients undergoing hysteroscopy., Search Strategy: A search of medical literature databases including PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINHAL (to February 2010)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological interventions for pain relief during hysteroscopy were investigated., Data Collection and Analysis: Results for each study were expressed as a standardised mean difference with 95% confidence interval and combined for meta-analysis with Revman 5 software., Main Results: Twenty-four RCTS were identified involving a total of 3155 participants, with 15 studies included in the meta-analysis.Meta-analysis (nine RCTs, 1296 participants) revealed a significant reduction in the mean pain score for the use of local anaesthetics during the procedure compared with placebo (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.17, I(2) = 82%).Meta-analysis (4 RCTs, 454 participants) demonstrated a significant reduction in the mean pain score for the use of local anaesthetics within 30 minutes after the procedure compared with placebo (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.21, I(2) = 54%).There was no significant reduction in the mean pain score with the use of NSAIDS or opioid analgesics compared with placebo during or within 30 minutes after the procedure.There was no significant reduction in the mean pain score with the use of local anaesthetics, NSAIDS or opioid analgesics compared with placebo more than 30 minutes after the procedure.There was no significant difference between the number of incidents of failure to complete the procedure due to cervical stenosis between the intervention and control groups (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.59; 6 RCTs, 805 participants).There were significantly fewer incidents of failure to complete the procedure due to pain in the intervention group than in the control group (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.69; two studies, 330 participants).Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the intervention and placebo groups with regards to adverse effects., Authors' Conclusions: There was a significant reduction in the mean pain score with the use of analgesia during and within 30 minutes after outpatient hysteroscopy.

Background: In an effort to improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation cycles the use of growth hormone has been considered. Improving the outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation is especially important for subfertile women who are considered 'poor responders'., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Groups trials register (June 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), EMBASE (1988 to June 2009) and Biological Abstracts (1969 to June 2009)., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials were included if they addressed the research question and provided outcome data for intervention and control participants., Data Collection and Analysis: Assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data was performed independently by two reviewers., Main Results: Ten studies (440 subfertile couples) were included. Results of the meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome measures and adverse events in the routine use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. However, meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in both live birth rates and pregnancy rates favouring the use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols in women who are considered poor responders without increasing adverse events, OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 15.35 and OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.20 respectively., Authors' Conclusions: Although the use of growth hormone in poor responders has been found to show a significant improvement in live birth rates, we were unable to identify which sub-group of poor responders would benefit the most from adjuvant growth hormone. The result needs to be interpreted with caution, the included trials were few in number and small sample size. Therefore, before recommending growth hormone adjuvant in in-vitro fertilisation further research is necessary to fully define its role.

Background: Endometriosis is the presence of endometrial glands or stroma in sites other than the uterine cavity. It is variable in both its surgical appearance and clinical manifestation, often with poor correlation between the two. Surgical treatment of endometriosis aims to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore anatomy by the division of adhesions., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of subfertility associated with endometriosis. The review aims to compare outcomes of laparoscopic surgical interventions compared to no treatment or medical treatment with regard to improved fertility., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of trials (June 2009), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), EMBASE (1980 to June 2009), and reference lists of articles., Selection Criteria: Trials were selected if they were randomised and compared the effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of subfertility associated with endometriosis versus other treatment modalities or placebo., Data Collection and Analysis: Two studies were eligible for inclusion within the review. Both studies compared laparoscopic surgical treatment of minimal and mild endometriosis compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only. The recorded outcomes included live birth, pregnancy, fetal losses, and complications of surgery., Main Results: When combining live birth rate and ongoing pregnancy after 20 weeks, meta-analysis demonstrated an advantage of laparoscopic surgery when compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. The odds ratio (OR) was 1.64 (95% confidence interval (Cl) 1.05 to 2.57) in favour of laparoscopic surgery. Meta-analysis also demonstrated an advantage of laparoscopic surgery when compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only in terms of clinical pregnancy rates, with an OR of 1.66 (95% Cl 1.09 to 2.51) favouring laparoscopic surgery. The results still need to be interpreted with caution as Marcoux 1997 reported a large positive effect of surgery whereas Gruppo Italiano reported a small negative effect. When considering fetal losses, meta-analysis did not demonstrate an effect of laparoscopic surgery when compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. The OR was 1.33 (95% Cl 0.60 to 2.94) favouring diagnostic laparoscopy only., Authors' Conclusions: The use of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of subfertility related to minimal and mild endometriosis may improve future fertility.

Background: In an effort to improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation cycles the use of growth hormone has been considered. Improving the outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation is especially important for subfertile women who are considered 'poor responders'., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Groups trials register (June 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), EMBASE (1988 to June 2009) and Biological Abstracts (1969 to June 2009)., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials were included if they addressed the research question and provided outcome data for intervention and control participants., Data Collection and Analysis: Assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data was performed independently by two reviewers., Main Results: Ten studies (440 subfertile couples) were included. Results of the meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome measures and adverse events in the routine use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. However, meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in both live birth rates and pregnancy rates favouring the use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols in women who are considered poor responders without increasing adverse events, OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 15.35 and OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.20 respectively., Authors' Conclusions: Although the use of growth hormone in poor responders has been found to show a significant improvement in live birth rates, we were unable to identify which sub-group of poor responders would benefit the most from adjuvant growth hormone. The result needs to be interpreted with caution, the included trials were few in number and small sample size. Therefore, before recommending growth hormone adjuvant in in-vitro fertilisation further research is necessary to fully define its role.