Purpose

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the therapeutic effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

Methods

The databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to retrieve data on eligible trials from inception until July 2022. The relative risks (RRs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were applied to assess categorical and continuous outcomes, and the pooled results were calculated using the random-effects model. Sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were also performed.

Results

Forty-eight trials that enrolled 10,127 women were included in this quantitative meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between rFSH and uFSH/uHMG in the clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.01; 95% CI 0.95–1.07; P = 0.760), live birth rate (RR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.91–1.06; P = 0.665), multiple pregnancy rate (RR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.77–1.09; P = 0.320), miscarriage rate (RR: 1.17; 95% CI 0.94–1.46; P = 0.151), and the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (RR: 1.25; 95% CI 0.91–1.70; P = 0.164). In addition, the administration of rFSH was associated with a higher number of oocyte retrieval compared with that of uFSH/uHMG (WMD: 0.61; 95% CI 0.03–1.20; P = 0.038), while no significant differences were found between rFSH and uFSH/uHMG in the dosage of gonadotrophin (WMD: 14.80; 95% CI − 136.97 to 166.57; P = 0.848) and the duration of ovarian stimulation (WMD: − 0.26; 95% CI − 0.62 to 0.10; P = 0.152). Thus, the exploratory analyses revealed several potential differences in the effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation.

Conclusion

The administration of rFSH significantly increased the number of oocytes retrieved, whereas there were no significant differences between the efficacies of rFSH and uFSH/uHMG for pregnancy outcomes.