| Supplementary Appendix 5. Relevant comments from the authors regarding the judgments for each outcome of each study included, using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) tool. As the judgments were the same for different results from the same study, the comments are presented only once. However, the table should be read as if only one of the results was being evaluated. | |||||
| Randomization | Deviations from intervention | Missing outcome data | Measurement of the outcome | Selection of reported result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Al-Snafi (2003) |
No allocation sequence concealment. Because of a preference for ovarian stimulation, especially hormonal stimulation followed by ovulation induction (by patients and gynecologists), the numbers of the second, third and fourth groups were increased compared with the first group. | Participants and personnel were aware of the assigned intervention. We have no information regarding deviations that might have arisen because of the trial context. |
--- | --- | --- |
| Yilmaz (2006) |
--- | Participants and personnel were aware of the assigned intervention. There were changes from assigned intervention that are inconsistent with the trial protocol, but these are consistent with what could occur outside the trial context. |
Sensitivity analyses conducted by review authors show that statistically significant results ( p ≤0.05) are not obtainable under a range of plausible assumptions about the relationship between missingness in the outcome and its true value. | Since it is an outcome that does not involve judgement, assessment of the outcome could not have been influenced by a possible knowledge of intervention received. | --- |
| Lewis (2006) |
--- | Participants and personnel were aware of the assigned intervention. There were changes from assigned intervention that are inconsistent with the trial protocol, but these are consistent with what could occur outside the trial context. |
Sensitivity analyses conducted by review authors show that statistically significant results ( p ≤0.05) are not obtainable under a range of plausible assumptions about the relationship between missingness in the outcome and its true value. | Since it is an outcome that does not involve judgement, assessment of the outcome could not have been influenced by a possible knowledge of intervention received. | --- |
| George (2007) |
--- | Participants and personnel were aware of the assigned intervention. We have no information regarding deviations that might have arisen because of the trial context. |
Sensitivity analyses conducted by review authors show that statistically significant results ( p ≤0.05) are not obtainable under a range of plausible assumptions about the relationship between missingness in the outcome and its true value. | Since it is an outcome that does not involve judgement, assessment of the outcome could not have been influenced by a possible knowledge of intervention received. | --- |
| Thomas (2019) |
--- | Participants and personnel were aware of the assigned intervention. There were changes from assigned intervention that are inconsistent with the trial protocol, but these are consistent with what could occur outside the trial context. |
Sensitivity analyses conducted by review authors show that statistically significant results ( p ≤0.05) are not obtainable under a range of plausible assumptions about the relationship between missingness in the outcome and its true value. | Since it is an outcome that does not involve judgement, assessment of the outcome could not have been influenced by a possible knowledge of intervention received. | --- |