Evidence mapPaperPMID 38837771Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2024

Androgens (dehydroepiandrosterone or testosterone) for women undergoing assisted reproduction.

Sandeep Naik, Sam Lepine, Helen E Nagels, Charalampos S Siristatidis, Ben Kroon, Simon McDowell

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Impact of CKD on Female Reproductive Hormones.Kidney international reports · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sandeep NaikObstetrics and Gynaecology, Capital Coast District Heath Board, Wellington, New Zealand.
Sam LepineDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Capital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington, New Zealand.
Helen E NagelsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Charalampos S SiristatidisAssisted Reproduction Unit, 2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Ben KroonQueensland Fertility Group Research Foundation, Brisbane, Australia.
Simon McDowellObstetrics and Gynaecology, Capital Coast District Heath Board, Wellington, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPractitioners in the field of assisted reproductive technology (ART) continually seek alternative or adjunct treatments to improve ART outcomes. This Cochrane review investigates the adjunct use of synthetic versions of two naturally produced hormones, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and testosterone (T), in assisted reproduction. Steroid hormones are proposed to increase conception rates by positively affecting follicular response to gonadotrophin stimulation. This may lead to a greater oocyte yield and, subsequently, an increased chance of pregnancy.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of DHEA and T as pre- or co-treatments in infertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following electronic databases up to 8 January 2024: the Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trial registries for ongoing trials. We also searched citation indexes, Web of Science, PubMed, and OpenGrey. We searched the reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DHEA or T as an adjunct treatment to any other active intervention, placebo, or no treatment in women undergoing assisted reproduction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted relevant data, and assessed risk of bias. We pooled data from studies using fixed-effect models. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for each dichotomous outcome. Analyses were stratified by type of treatment. We assessed the certainty of evidence for the main findings using GRADE methods. MAIN

resultsWe included 28 RCTs. There were 1533 women in the intervention groups and 1469 in the control groups. Apart from three trials, trial participants were women identified as 'poor responders' to standard in vitro fertilisation (IVF) protocols. The included trials compared either T or DHEA treatment with placebo or no treatment. Pre-treatment with DHEA versus placebo/no treatment: DHEA likely results in little to no difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.76; I² = 16%, 9 RCTs, N = 1433, moderate certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 12% chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with placebo or no treatment, the live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate in women using DHEA will be between 12% and 20%. DHEA likely does not decrease miscarriage rates (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.37; I² = 0%, 10 RCTs, N =1601, moderate certainty evidence). DHEA likely results in little to no difference in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.49; I² = 0%, 13 RCTs, N = 1886, moderate certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 17% chance of clinical pregnancy with placebo or no treatment, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using DHEA will be between 16% and 24%. We are very uncertain about the effect of DHEA on multiple pregnancy (OR 3.05, 95% CI 0.47 to 19.66; 7 RCTs, N = 463, very low certainty evidence). Pre-treatment with T versus placebo/no treatment: T likely improves live birth rates (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.99; I² = 0%, 8 RCTs, N = 716, moderate certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 10% chance of live birth with placebo or no treatment, the live birth rate in women using T will be between 15% and 30%. T likely does not decrease miscarriage rates (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.51; I² = 0%, 9 RCTs, N = 755, moderate certainty evidence). T likely increases clinical pregnancy rates (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.06; I² = 0%, 13 RCTs, N = 1152, moderate certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 12% chance of clinical pregnancy with placebo or no treatment, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using T will be between 17% and 29%. We are very uncertain about the effect of T on multiple pregnancy (OR 2.56, 95% CI 0.59 to 11.20; 5 RCTs, N = 449, very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of T versus estradiol or T versus estradiol + oral contraceptive pills. The certainty of the evidence was moderate to very low, the main limitations being lack of blinding in the included trials, inadequate reporting of study methods, and low event and sample sizes in the trials. Data on adverse events were sparse; any reported events were minor. AUTHORS'

conclusionsPre-treatment with T likely improves, and pre-treatment with DHEA likely results in little to no difference, in live birth and clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing IVF who have been identified as poor responders. DHEA and T probably do not decrease miscarriage rates in women under IVF treatment. The effects of DHEA and T on multiple pregnancy are uncertain. Research is needed to identify the optimal duration of treatment with T. Future studies should include data collection on adverse events and multiple pregnancy.

Indexed as

DehydroepiandrosteroneLive BirthPregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproductive Techniques, AssistedTestosteroneAbortion, SpontaneousAndrogensBiasFemaleHumansInfertility, FemaleOvulation InductionPregnancyAndrogensDehydroepiandrosteroneTestosterone

Identifiers

PMID38837771
PMCPMC11152211

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.