Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI).

BACKGROUND: During a stimulated cycle of in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), women receive daily doses of gonadotropin follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to induce multifollicular development in the ovaries. A normal response to stimulation (e.g. retrieval of 5 to 15 oocytes) is considered desirable. Generally, the number of eggs retrieved is associated with the dose of FSH. Both hyper-response and poor response are associated with an increased chance of cycle cancellation. In hyper-response, this is due to increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), while poor response cycles are cancelled because the quantity and quality of oocytes is expected to be low. Clinicians often individualise the FSH dose using patient characteristics predictive of ovarian response. Traditionally, this meant women's age, but increasingly, clinicians use various ovarian reserve tests (ORTs). These include basal FSH (bFSH), antral follicle count (AFC), and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). It is unclear whether individualising FSH dose improves clinical outcomes. This review updates the 2018 version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers in February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared (a) different doses of FSH in women with a defined ORT profile (i.e. predicted low, normal, or high responders based on AMH, AFC, and/or bFSH) or (b) an individualised dosing strategy (based on at least one ORT measure) versus uniform dosing or a different individualised dosing algorithm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and severe OHSS. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies, involving 8520 women (6 new studies added to 20 studies included in the previous version). We treated RCTs with multiple comparisons as separate trials for the purpose of this review. Meta-analysis was limited due to clinical heterogeneity. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to low, with the main limitations being imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding. Direct dose comparisons according to predicted response in women Due to differences in dose comparisons, caution is required when interpreting the RCTs in predicted low responders. All evidence was low or very low certainty. Effect estimates were very imprecise, and increased FSH dosing may or may not have an impact on rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy, OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. Similarly, in predicted normal responders (10 studies, 4 comparisons), higher doses may or may not impact the probability of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (e.g. 200 versus 100 international units (IU): odds ratio (OR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 522 women) or clinical pregnancy. Results were imprecise, and a small benefit or harm remains possible. There were too few events for the OHSS outcome to enable inferences. In predicted high responders, lower doses may or may not affect live birth/ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.46; 1 study, 521 women), severe OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. It is also unclear whether lower doses reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 6.67; 1 study, 521 participants). ORT-algorithm studies Eight trials compared an ORT-based algorithm to a non-ORT control group. It is unclear whether live birth/ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy are increased using an ORT-based algorithm (live birth/ongoing pregnancy: OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; I2 = 30%; 7 studies, 4400 women; clinical pregnancy: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; I2 = 18%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). However, ORT algorithms may reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2724 women; low-certainty evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with a standard starting dose is 25%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 25% and 31%. If the chance of moderate or severe OHSS with a standard starting dose is 5%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 2% and 5%. These results should be treated cautiously due to heterogeneity in the algorithms: some algorithms appear to be more effective than others. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find that tailoring the FSH dose in any particular ORT population (low, normal, high ORT) affected live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates, but we could not rule out differences, due to sample size limitations. Low-certainty evidence suggests that it is unclear if ORT-based individualisation leads to an increase in live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to a policy of giving all women 150 IU. The confidence interval is consistent with an increase of up to around six percentage points with ORT-based dosing (e.g. from 25% to 31%) or a very small decrease (< 1%). A difference of this magnitude could be important to many women. It is unclear if this is driven by improved outcomes in a particular subgroup. Further, ORT algorithms reduced the incidence of OHSS compared to standard dosing of 150 IU. However, the size of the effect is also unclear. The included studies were heterogeneous in design, which limited the interpretation of pooled estimates. It is likely that different ORT algorithms differ in their effectiveness. Current evidence does not provide a clear justification for adjusting the dose of 150 IU in poor or normal responders, especially as increased dose is associated with greater total FSH dose and cost. It is unclear whether a decreased dose in predicted high responders reduces OHSS, although this would appear to be the most likely explanation for the results.

The Sleepio After Cancer (SAC) study. Digital cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (dCBT-I) in women cancer patients - Trial protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: This study will assess the efficacy of digital CBT for insomnia (dCBT-I) compared to sleep hygiene education (SHE) for the management of insomnia in women with cancer. BACKGROUND: 30% of patients with cancer meet insomnia diagnostic criteria and this can be detrimental to health outcomes. Insomnia disorder comprises a dissatisfaction with sleep quantity or quality characterized by difficulty initiating sleep, frequent awakenings, or early morning wakening without the ability to return to sleep, at least 3 nights per week, for at least 3 months, causing significant impairment or distress in areas of functioning. METHODS: We will recruit 308 women with a current or prior cancer diagnosis who are currently experiencing insomnia; defined as a score of 16 or less on the Sleep Condition Indicator (SCI). Participants will be randomised to dCBT-I or SHE. dCBT-I will be delivered online via 6 sessions. SHE will be provided in an online format. Assessments of sleep and other related parameters, through validated questionnaires, will be taken at 12 and 24 weeks following intervention. Once 24 week assessments are completed, participants will crossover to the alternate arm (either SHE or dCBT-I) and undergo a final assessment at week 36. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome will be the mean continuous change in SCI score in the intervention arm compared to the control arm at 24 weeks. Additionally, the proportion of women with an SCI > 16 at 24 weeks will be assessed. Secondary outcomes include fatigue, sleep related quality of life, depression, anxiety, and hot flush interference. REGISTRATION: This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT05816460.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs (3703 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

Interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding; overview of Cochrane reviews and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences. OBJECTIVES: To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB. METHODS: We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.

Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

BACKGROUND: Implantation of an embryo within the endometrial cavity is a critical step in the process of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Previous research has suggested that endometrial injury (also known as endometrial scratching), defined as intentional damage to the endometrium, can increase the chance of pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) including intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and frozen embryo transfer. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2020 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE and two trial registries. We also checked the reference sections of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing intentional endometrial injury before embryo transfer in women undergoing IVF, versus no intervention or a sham procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two independent review authors screened studies, evaluated risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence by using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. We contacted and corresponded with study investigators as required. Due to the high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, the primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at a low risk of bias for selection bias and other bias. Sensitivity analysis was then performed including all studies. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage. MAIN RESULTS: Endometrial injury versus control (no procedure or a sham procedure) A total of 37 studies (8786 women) were included in this comparison. Most studies performed endometrial injury by pipelle biopsy in the luteal phase of the cycle before the IVF cycle. The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and included eight studies. The effect of endometrial injury on live birth is unclear as the result is consistent with no effect, or a small reduction, or an improvement (odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.28; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 15%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth with IVF is usually 27%, then the chance when using endometrial injury would be somewhere between < 27% and 32%. Similarly, the effect of endometrial injury on clinical pregnancy is unclear (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.23; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy from IVF is normally 32%, then the chance when using endometrial injury before IVF is between 31% and 37%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy due to high risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity. Endometrial injury probably results in little to no difference in chance of miscarriage (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), and this result was similar in the sensitivity analysis that included all studies. The result suggests that if the chance of miscarriage with IVF is usually 6.0%, then when using endometrial injury it would be somewhere between 4.2% and 6.8%. Endometrial injury was associated with mild to moderate pain (approximately 4 out of 10), and was generally associated with some minimal bleeding. The evidence was downgraded for imprecision due to wide confidence intervals and therefore all primary analyses were graded as moderate certainty. Higher versus lower degree of injury Only one small study was included in this comparison (participants = 129), which compared endometrial injury using two different instruments in the cycle prior to the IVF cycle: a pipelle catheter and a Shepard catheter. This trial was excluded from the primary analysis due to risk of bias. In the sensitivity analysis, all outcomes reported for this study were graded as very-low certainty due to risk of bias, and as such we were not able to interpret the study results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effect of endometrial injury on live birth and clinical pregnancy among women undergoing IVF is unclear. The results of the meta-analyses are consistent with an increased chance, no effect and a small reduction in these outcomes. We are therefore uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the chance of live birth or clinical pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. Endometrial injury does not appear to affect the chance of miscarriage. It is a somewhat painful procedure associated with a small amount of bleeding. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the routine use of endometrial injury for women undergoing IVF.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs (4035 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Higher versus lower degree of intentional endometrial injury Evidence was insufficient to show whether there is a difference in ongoing pregnancy rates (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; 1 RCT, 332 participants; low-quality evidence) between hysteroscopy with endometrial injury and hysteroscopy alone. Evidence suggests that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy with hysteroscopy alone is 10%, then the chance with hysteroscopy with endometrial injury would be 7% to 24%. This study did not report the primary outcomes of live birth and pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI).

BACKGROUND: During a cycle of in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), women receive daily doses of gonadotropin follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to induce multifollicular development in the ovaries. Generally, the dose of FSH is associated with the number of eggs retrieved. A normal response to stimulation is often considered desirable, for example the retrieval of 5 to 15 oocytes. Both poor and hyper-response are associated with increased chance of cycle cancellation. Hyper-response is also associated with increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Clinicians often individualise the FSH dose using patient characteristics predictive of ovarian response such as age. More recently, clinicians have begun using ovarian reserve tests (ORTs) to predict ovarian response based on the measurement of various biomarkers, including basal FSH (bFSH), antral follicle count (AFC), and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). It is unclear whether individualising FSH dose based on these markers improves clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE, ISI Web of Knowledge, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Trials Registry Platform search portal from inception to 27th July 2017. We checked the reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials that compared different doses of FSH in women with a defined ORT profile (i.e. predicted low, normal or high responders based on AMH, AFC, and/or bFSH) and trials that compared an individualised dosing strategy (based on at least one ORT measure) versus uniform dosing or a different individualised dosing algorithm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and severe OHSS. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, moderate or severe OHSS, multiple pregnancy, oocyte yield, cycle cancellations, and total dose and duration of FSH administration. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials (N = 6088); however, we treated those trials with multiple comparisons as separate trials for the purpose of this review. Meta-analysis was limited due to clinical heterogeneity. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding.Direct dose comparisons in women according to predicted responseAll evidence was low or very low quality.Due to differences in dose comparisons, caution is warranted in interpreting the findings of five small trials assessing predicted low responders. The effect estimates were very imprecise, and increased FSH dosing may or may not have an impact on rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy, OHSS, and clinical pregnancy.Similarly, in predicted normal responders (nine studies, three comparisons), higher doses may or may not impact the probability of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (e.g. 200 versus 100 international units: OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.36; N = 522; 2 studies; I2 = 0%) or clinical pregnancy. Results were imprecise, and a small benefit or harm remains possible. There were too few events for the outcome of OHSS to enable any inferences.In predicted high responders, lower doses may or may not have an impact on rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.46; N = 521; 1 study), OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. However, lower doses probably reduce the likelihood of moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 6.67; N = 521; 1 study).ORT-algorithm studiesFour trials compared an ORT-based algorithm to a non-ORT control group. Rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy did not appear to differ by more than a few percentage points (respectively: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.23; N = 2823, 4 studies; I2 = 34%; OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13, 4 studies, I2=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, ORT algorithms probably reduce the likelihood of moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.00; N = 2823; 4 studies; I2 = 0%, low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.99; N = 1494; 3 studies; I2 = 0%, low quality evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with a standard dose is 26%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 24% and 30%. If the chance of moderate or severe OHSS with a standard dose is 2.5%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 0.8% and 2.5%. These results should be treated cautiously due to heterogeneity in the study designs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find that tailoring the FSH dose in any particular ORT population (low, normal, high ORT), influenced rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy but we could not rule out differences, due to sample size limitations. In predicted high responders, lower doses of FSH seemed to reduce the overall incidence of moderate and severe OHSS. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that ORT-based individualisation produces similar live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates to a policy of giving all women 150 IU. However, in all cases the confidence intervals are consistent with an increase or decrease in the rate of around five percentage points with ORT-based dosing (e.g. from 25% to 20% or 30%). Although small, a difference of this magnitude could be important to many women. Further, ORT algorithms reduced the incidence of OHSS compared to standard dosing of 150 IU, probably by facilitating dose reductions in women with a predicted high response. However, the size of the effect is unclear. The included studies were heterogeneous in design, which limited the interpretation of pooled estimates, and many of the included studies had a serious risk of bias.Current evidence does not provide a clear justification for adjusting the standard dose of 150 IU in the case of poor or normal responders, especially as increased dose is generally associated with greater total FSH dose and therefore greater cost. However, a decreased dose in predicted high responders may reduce OHSS.

There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the consistency in risk of bias (RoB) judgments across Cochrane reviews for studies appearing in more than one Cochrane review in the field of subfertility. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We retrieved any study that had been used more than once in systematic reviews present on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the area of subfertility. We then retrieved the recorded RoB assessments for these studies and looked at the consistency of judgments made between different authoring teams on the same trials. RESULTS: From the 156 bias judgments that were completed by at least two separate groups of authors, 45% of these judgments differed. For the domains of random sequence generation and incomplete outcome data, there was reasonably high level of agreement (71% and 79%, respectively). However, for the domain of blinding, agreement was reached in only 35% of cases. CONCLUSION: This assessment of how consistently the RoB is being applied in Cochrane reviews has shown that, especially in some domains, there are large discrepancies in how RoB is being evaluated. Further work needs to be undertaken to improve the application of this tool.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Intentional endometrial injury is currently being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy or a similar technique, and is a common, simple, gynaecological procedure that has an established safety profile. However, it is also known to be associated with a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with low complexity fertility treatments such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) and ovulation induction (OI), remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury in subfertile women and couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gyanecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE, ISI Web of Knowledge and ClinicalTrials.gov; as well as reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. We performed the searches from inception to 31 October 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without OI) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed trial quality using GRADE methodology. The primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy and bleeding secondary to the procedure. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials, which included a total of 1512 women, met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review. Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. In seven studies the women were undergoing IUI and in two studies the women were trying to conceive from sexual intercourse. Eight trials compared intentional endometrial injury with no injury/placebo procedure; of these two trials also compared intentional endometrial injury in the cycle prior to IUI with intentional endometrial injury in the IUI cycle. One trial compared higher vs. lower degree of intentional endometrial injury. Intentional endometrial injury vs. either no intervention or a sham procedureWe are uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy as the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low (risk ratio (RR) 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 3.15; six RCTs, 950 participants; I² statistic = 0%, very low quality evidence). When we restricted the analysis to only studies at low risk of bias the effect was imprecise and the evidence remained of very low quality (RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.82; one RCT, 105 participants; very low quality evidence). Endometrial injury may improve clinical pregnancy rates however the evidence is of low quality (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.58; eight RCTs, 1180 participants; I² statistic = 0%, low quality evidence).The average pain experienced by participants undergoing endometrial injury was 6/10 on a zero-10 visual analogue scale (VAS)(standard deviation = 1.5). However, only one study reported this outcome. Higher vs. lower degree of intentional endometrial injuryWhen we compared hysteroscopy with endometrial injury to hysteroscopy alone, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; one RCT, 332 participants; low quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.01; one RCT, 332 participants, low quality evidence). This study did not report the primary outcome of pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injuryWhen endometrial injury was performed in the cycle prior to IUI compared to the same cycle as the IUI, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.16, one RCT, 176 participants; very low quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.36; two RCTs, 276 participants; very low quality evidence). Neither of these studies reported the primary outcome of pain during the procedure.In all three comparisons there was no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or multiple pregnancy. No studies reported bleeding secondary to the procedure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the probability of pregnancy and live birth/ongoing pregnancy in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution as we graded the quality of the evidence as either low or very low. The main reasons we downgraded the quality of the evidence were most included studies were at a high risk of bias and had an overall low level of precision. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise internal bias are required to confirm or refute these findings.

Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques.

BACKGROUND: Implantation of an embryo within the endometrial cavity is a critical step in assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Previous research has suggested that endometrial injury - intentional damage to the endometrium - can increase the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing ART. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and ClinicalTrials.gov. The original search was performed in November 2011, and further searches were done in March 2014 and January 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing intentional endometrial injury before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART, versus no intervention or a sham procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened studies and extracted data which were checked by a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias. We contacted and corresponded with study investigators as required and analysed data using risk ratio (RR) and a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials that included 1063 women in the intervention groups and 1065 women in the control groups. Thirteen studies compared endometrial injury performed between day 7 of the previous cycle and day 7 of the embryo transfer (ET) cycle versus no injury, and one study compared endometrial injury on the day of oocyte retrieval versus no injury. Overall, eight of the 14 included studies were deemed to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain.In studies comparing endometrial injury performed between day 7 of the previous cycle and day 7 of the ET cycle versus no intervention or a sham procedure, endometrial injury was associated with an increase in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate: RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.85; P value 0.01; nine RCTs; 1496 women; I² = 53%; moderate-quality evidence. In other words, moderate-quality evidence suggests that if 26% of women achieve live birth without endometrial injury, between 28% and 48% will achieve live birth with endometrial injury. A sensitivity analysis removing the studies at high risk of bias showed no difference in effect.There was no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, however the evidence is of low-quality: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.53; P value 0.06; eight RCTs; 500 clinical pregnancies; I² = 10%; low-quality evidence.Endometrial injury was also associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate: RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.61; P value 0.002; 13 RCTs; 1972 women; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence. This suggests that if 30% of women achieve clinical pregnancy without endometrial injury, between 33% and 48% will achieve clinical pregnancy with this intervention.Endometrial injury was associated with increased pain, however the evidence was of very low quality. One study reported pain on a VAS scale: MD 4.60, 95% CI 3.98 to 5.22; P value < 0.00001; one RCT; 158 women. Two studies reported the number of pain complaints after the procedure; one recorded no events in either group, and the other reported that endometrial injury increased pain complaints: OR 8.65, 95% CI 2.49 to 30.10; P value 0.0007; one RCT; 101 women.Results from the only randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing endometrial injury on the day of oocyte retrieval versus no injury, reported that this endometrial injury markedly decreased live birth (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69; P value 0.004; 156 women; low-quality evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.71; P value 0.003; one RCT; 156 women; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence indicates that endometrial injury performed between day 7 of the previous cycle and day 7 of the embryo transfer (ET) cycle is associated with an improvement in live birth and clinical pregnancy rates in women with more than two previous embryo transfers. There is no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, multiple pregnancy or bleeding. The procedure is mildly painful. Endometrial injury on the day of oocyte retrieval is associated with a reduction of clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates.Although current evidence suggests some benefit of endometrial injury, we need evidence from well-designed trials that avoid instrumentation of the uterus in the preceding three months, do not cause endometrial damage in the control group, stratify the results for women with and without recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and report live birth.