Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone

Human Reproduction

Volumn 16, Issue 11, 2001, Pages 2249-2250

  Walters, E ^a  

^a Thorpes   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bias; Data pooling; Erroneous inferences; Meta analyses

Indexed keywords

FOLLITROPIN; RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; URINARY FOLLITROPIN; RECOMBINANT PROTEIN;

ANALYTICAL ERROR; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; SHORT SURVEY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; NOTE; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; RISK; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; URINE;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); FEMALE; FOLLICLE STIMULATING HORMONE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; META-ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0035153126     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Short Survey

References (7)

1. Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction
2. Meta-analysis on recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone
3. Meta-analysis of rFSH versus uFSH
4. Meta-analysis on recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone
5. The status of the hypothesis that the human sex ratio at birth is associated with the cycle day of conception
6. Meta-analysis on rFSH versus uFSH
7. On the need for statistical rigour when pooling data from a variety of sources