The effect of prior hysterosalpingo-foam sonography or hysterosalpingography on tubal patency: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) prior to hysterosalpingography (HSG) or HSG prior to HyFoSy affect visible tubal patency when compared HSG or HyFoSy alone? SUMMARY ANSWER: Undergoing either HyFoSy or HSG prior to tubal patency testing by the alternative method does not demonstrate a significant difference in visible tubal patency when compared to HyFoSy or HSG alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HyFoSy and HSG are two commonly used visual tubal patency tests with a high and comparable diagnostic accuracy for evaluating tubal patency. These tests may also improve fertility, although the underlying mechanism is still not fully understood. One of the hypotheses points to a dislodgment of mucus plugs that may have disrupted the patency of the Fallopian tubes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled FOAM study, in which women underwent tubal patency testing by HyFoSy and HSG, randomized for order of the procedure. Participants either had HyFoSy first and then HSG, or vice versa. Here, we evaluate the relative effectiveness of tubal patency testing by HyFoSy or HSG prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method on visible tubal patency, compared to each method alone. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Infertile women aged between 18 and 41 years scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible for participating in the FOAM study. Women with anovulatory cycles, endometriosis, or with a partner with male infertility were excluded. To evaluate the effect HyFoSy on tubal patency, we relied on HSG results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HSG in those who underwent and who did not undergo HyFoSy prior to their HSG (HyFoSy prior to HSG versus HSG alone). To evaluate the effect of HSG on tubal patency, we relied on HyFoSy results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HyFoSy in those who underwent and who did not undergo HSG prior to their HyFoSy (HSG prior to HyFoSy versus HyFoSy alone). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, we randomized 1160 women (576 underwent HyFoSy first followed by HSG, and 584 underwent HSG first followed by HyFoSy). Among the women randomized to HyFoSy prior to HSG, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HSG in 467/537 (87%) women, compared with 472/544 (87%) women who underwent HSG alone (risk difference 0.2%; 95% CI: -3.8% to 4.2%). Among the women randomized to HSG prior to HyFoSy, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HyFoSy in 394/471 (84%) women, compared with 428/486 (88%) women who underwent HyFoSy alone (risk difference -4.4%; 95% CI: -8.8% to 0.0%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results of this secondary analysis should be interpreted as exploratory and cannot be regarded as definitive evidence. Furthermore, it has to be noted that pregnancy outcomes were not considered in this analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Tubal patency testing by either HyFoSy or HSG, prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method does not significantly affect visible tubal patency, when compared to alternative method alone. This suggests that both methods may have comparable abilities to dislodge mucus plugs in the Fallopian tubes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data. H.R.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford University Press in the role of Deputy Editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a Data Safety and Monitoring Board as an independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. M.v.W. is coordinating editor of Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology. B.W.J.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC (GNT1176437) and research funding from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Organon and Merck KGaA, and travel support from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports holding stocks of ObsEva. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring and travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Atosiban versus placebo in the treatment of threatened preterm birth between 30 and 34 weeks gestation: study protocol of the 4-year APOSTEL 8 follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, the majority of women worldwide with threatened preterm birth are treated with tocolytics. Although tocolytics can effectively delay birth for 48 hours, no tocolytic drug has convincingly been shown to improve neonatal outcomes and effects on long-term child development are unknown. The aim of this follow-up study of a placebo controlled randomised trial is to investigate the long-term effects of atosiban administration in case of threatened preterm birth on child's neurodevelopment and behaviour development, overall health and mortality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol concerns a follow-up study of the multicentre randomised double-blind placebo controlled APOSTEL 8 trial (NL61439.018.17, EudraCT-number 2017-001007-72). In this trial, women with threatened preterm birth (between 30 and 34 weeks of gestation) defined as uterine contractions with (1) a cervical length of <15 mm or (2) a cervical length of 15-30 mm and a positive fibronectin test or (3) in centres where cervical length measurement is not part of the local protocol: a positive fibronectin test or Actim-Partus test or (4) ruptured membranes, are randomised to atosiban or placebo for 48 hours. The primary outcome is a composite of perinatal mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. Children born to mothers who participated in the APOSTEL 8 study (n=760) will be eligible for follow-up at 4 years of corrected age and assessed using four parent-reported questionnaires. Primary outcomes are neurodevelopment and behaviour problems. Secondary outcomes are on child growth and general health. All outcomes will be compared between the atosiban and placebo group with OR and corresponding 95% CI. Analyses will be performed using the intention-to-treat approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Research Ethics Committee from Amsterdam UMC confirmed that de Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (Dutch WMO-law) did not apply to our study (W21_386 # 21.431). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and shared with stakeholders and participants. This protocol is published before analysis of the results.

Data integrity of 14 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A review of the literature on iron treatments for iron-deficient anaemia in pregnancy indicated duplication of baseline and outcome tables in two separate randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that share only a single author. AIM: To assess the integrity of randomised clinical trials from Dr A.M. Darwish, Assiut University, Egypt. DESIGN: Assessment of Research Integrity. METHODS: We tabulated the characteristics of studies, compared baseline and outcome tables between articles and looked for implausible findings. We used the distribution of baseline p-values to assess whether the summary statistics of baseline characteristics were consistent with properly conducted randomisation. RESULTS: We identified 14 RCTs (1,405 participants) published between October 2004 and September 2019. Two pairs of studies showed considerable similarities in baseline characteristics, while another pair of studies was plagiarized. The analysis of baseline p-values indicated a low probability that all the studies featured randomised treatment allocation. CONCLUSION: Our analysis of the RCTs of Dr Darwish suggests possible integrity problems. We recommend a critical investigation of the studies that have not been retracted. Until that has been completed, these studies should not be used to inform clinical practice.

[Not all published data are reliable: fabricated data in medical research]. / Niet alle gepubliceerde data zijn betrouwbaar.

For a long time, the reliability of medical-scientific research was, without further verification, based on real data. It is becoming increasingly clear that this assumption is unjustified and that probably at least 25% of published randomized clinical trials are based on unreliable and sometimes even fabricated data. After giving a number of examples, it is discussed what the reader can do about this problem. More importantly, editors and publishers should no longer rely on whistle-blowers but take action themselves. If this does not happen, external parties must intervene. Society cannot afford (medical) science that is based on unreliable data.

A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project.

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INSPECT-SR project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion. Methods: We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorised these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list. Results: Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool. Conclusions: A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.

Effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines on maternal and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in women before or during pregnancy on SARS-CoV-2 infection-related, pregnancy, offspring and reactogenicity outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Major databases between December 2019 and January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Nine pairs of reviewers contributed to study selection. We included test-negative designs, comparative cohorts and randomised trials on effects of COVID-19 vaccines on infection-related and pregnancy outcomes. Non-comparative cohort studies reporting reactogenicity outcomes were also included. QUALITY ASSESSMENT, DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We undertook random-effects meta-analysis and reported findings as HRs, risk ratios (RRs), ORs or rates with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Sixty-seven studies (1 813 947 women) were included. Overall, in test-negative design studies, pregnant women fully vaccinated with any COVID-19 vaccine had 61% reduced odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.75; 4 studies, 23 927 women; I2=87.2%) and 94% reduced odds of hospital admission (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.71; 2 studies, 868 women; I2=92%). In adjusted cohort studies, the risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy was reduced by 12% (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.92; 2 studies; 115 085 women), while caesarean section was reduced by 9% (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98; 6 studies; 30 192 women). We observed an 8% reduction in the risk of neonatal intensive care unit admission (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 2 studies; 54 569 women) in babies born to vaccinated versus not vaccinated women. In general, vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy or perinatal outcomes. Pain at the injection site was the most common side effect reported (77%, 95% CI 52% to 94%; 11 studies; 27 195 women). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and related complications in pregnant women. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178076.

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Mixed models for repetitive measurements: the basics.

Linear mixed models are regularly used within the field of reproductive medicine. This manuscript explains the basics of mixed models, when they could be used, and how they could be applied.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.

Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. SEARCH METHODS: We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others. OUTCOMES: The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach.

COVID-19 in pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the risk and prevalence of pregnancy loss.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are more likely to experience preterm birth and their neonates are more likely to be stillborn or admitted to a neonatal unit. The World Health Organization declared in May 2023 an end to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a global health emergency. However, pregnant women are still becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and there is limited information available regarding the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We conducted this systematic review to determine the prevalence of early pregnancy loss in women with SARS-Cov-2 infection and compare the risk to pregnant women without SARS-CoV-2 infection. SEARCH METHODS: Our systematic review is based on a prospectively registered protocol. The search of PregCov19 consortium was supplemented with an extra electronic search specifically on pregnancy loss in pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 10 March 2023 in PubMed, Google Scholar, and LitCovid. We included retrospective and prospective studies of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, provided that they contained information on pregnancy losses in the first and/or second trimester. Primary outcome was miscarriage defined as a pregnancy loss before 20 weeks of gestation, however, studies that reported loss up to 22 or 24 weeks were also included. Additionally, we report on studies that defined the pregnancy loss to occur at the first and/or second trimester of pregnancy without specifying gestational age, and for second trimester miscarriage only when the study presented stillbirths and/or foetal losses separately from miscarriages. Data were stratified into first and second trimester. Secondary outcomes were ectopic pregnancy (any extra-uterine pregnancy), and termination of pregnancy. At least three researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and risk differences (RDs) with corresponding 95% CI and pooled the data using random effects meta-analysis. To estimate risk prevalence, we performed meta-analysis on proportions. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2. OUTCOMES: We included 120 studies comprising a total of 168 444 pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection; of which 18 233 women were in their first or second trimester of pregnancy. Evidence level was considered to be of low to moderate certainty, mostly owing to selection bias. We did not find evidence of an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and miscarriage (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81-1.48; I2 = 0.0%; RD 0.0012, 95% CI -0.0103 to 0.0127; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4439 women). Miscarriage occurred in 9.9% (95% CI 6.2-14.0%; I2 = 68%; 46 studies, 1797 women) of the women with SARS CoV-2 infection in their first trimester and in 1.2% (95% CI 0.3-2.4%; I2 = 34%; 33 studies; 3159 women) in the second trimester. The proportion of ectopic pregnancies in women with SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.4% (95% CI 0.02-4.2%; I2 = 66%; 14 studies, 950 women). Termination of pregnancy occurred in 0.6% of the women (95% CI 0.01-1.6%; I2 = 79%; 39 studies; 1166 women). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Our study found no indication that SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first or second trimester increases the risk of miscarriages. To provide better risk estimates, well-designed studies are needed that include pregnant women with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection at conception and early pregnancy and consider the association of clinical manifestation and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection with pregnancy loss, as well as potential confounding factors such as previous pregnancy loss. For clinical practice, pregnant women should still be advised to take precautions to avoid risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation for unexplained infertility: a collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: IVF and IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) are widely used in managing unexplained infertility. IUI-OS is generally considered first-line therapy, followed by IVF only if IUI-OS is unsuccessful after several attempts. However, there is a growing interest in using IVF for immediate treatment because it is believed to lead to higher live birth rates and shorter time to pregnancy. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVF versus IUI-OS had varied study designs and findings. Some RCTs used complex algorithms to combine IVF and IUI-OS, while others had unequal follow-up time between arms or compared treatments on a per-cycle basis, which introduced biases. Comparing cumulative live birth rates of IVF and IUI-OS within a consistent time frame is necessary for a fair head-to-head comparison. Previous meta-analyses of RCTs did not consider the time it takes to achieve pregnancy, which is not possible using aggregate data. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) allows standardization of follow-up time in different trials and time-to-event analysis methods. We performed this IPD-MA to investigate if IVF increases cumulative live birth rate considering the time leading to pregnancy and reduces multiple pregnancy rate compared to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register to identify RCTs that completed data collection before June 2021. A search update was carried out in January 2023. RCTs that compared IVF/ICSI to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility were eligible. We invited author groups of eligible studies to join the IPD-MA and share the deidentified IPD of their RCTs. IPD were checked and standardized before synthesis. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. OUTCOMES: Of eight potentially eligible RCTs, two were considered awaiting classification. In the other six trials, four shared IPD of 934 women, of which 550 were allocated to IVF and 383 to IUI-OS. Because the interventions were unable to blind, two RCTs had a high risk of bias, one had some concerns, and one had a low risk of bias. Considering the time to pregnancy leading to live birth, the cumulative live birth rate was not significantly higher in IVF compared to that in IUI-OS (4 RCTs, 908 women, 50.3% versus 43.2%, hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.81-1.74, I2 = 42.4%). For the safety primary outcome, the rate of multiple pregnancy was not significantly lower in IVF than IUI-OS (3 RCTs, 890 women, 3.8% versus 5.2% of all couples randomized, odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.41-1.50, I2 = 0.0%). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: There is no robust evidence that in couples with unexplained infertility IVF achieves pregnancy leading to live birth faster than IUI-OS. IVF and IUI-OS are both viable options in terms of effectiveness and safety for managing unexplained infertility. The associated costs of interventions and the preference of couples need to be weighed in clinical decision-making.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INSPECT-SR project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare related interventions. Methods and analysis: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: 1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, 2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, 3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in 4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format, 5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies, and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.

Home-based monitoring of ovulation to time frozen embryo transfers in the Netherlands (Antarctica-2): an open-label, nationwide, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The growing field of assisted reproductive techniques, including frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET), should lead the way to the best sustainable health care without compromising pregnancy chances. Correct timing of FET is crucial to allow implantation of the thawed embryo. Nowadays, timing based on hospital-controlled monitoring of ovulation in the natural cycle of a woman is the preferred strategy because of the assumption of favourable fertility prospects. However, home-based monitoring is a simple method to prevent patient travel and any associated environmental concerns. We compared ongoing pregnancy rates after home-based monitoring versus hospital-controlled monitoring with ovulation triggering. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial was undertaken in 23 hospitals and clinics in the Netherlands. Women aged between 18 and 44 years with a regular ovulatory menstrual cycle were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via a web-based randomisation program to home-based monitoring or hospital-controlled monitoring. Those who analysed the data were masked to the groups; those collecting the data were not. All endpoints were analysed by intention to treat and per protocol. Non-inferiority was established when the lower limit of the 90% CI exceeded -4%. This study was registered at the Dutch Trial Register (Trial NL6414). FINDINGS: 1464 women were randomly assigned between April 10, 2018, and April 13, 2022, with 732 allocated to home-based monitoring and 732 to hospital-controlled monitoring. Ongoing pregnancy occurred in 152 (20·8%) of 732 in the home-based monitoring group and in 153 (20·9%) of 732 in the hospital-controlled monitoring group (risk ratio [RR] 0·99 [90% CI 0·81 to 1·22]; risk difference [RD] -0·14 [90% CI -3·63 to 3·36]). The per-protocol analysis confirmed non-inferiority (152 [21·0%] of 725 vs 153 [21·0%] of 727; RR 1·00 (90% CI 0·81 to 1·23); RD -0·08 [90% CI -3·60 to 3·44]). INTERPRETATION: Home-based monitoring of ovulation is non-inferior to hospital-controlled monitoring of ovulation to time FET. FUNDING: The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Series of overviews on miscarriage and recurrent miscarriage.

Miscarriage is a relatively common occurrence with many knowns and unknowns and a profound psychological impact on individuals and couples. The editors felt it was time to publish a series of overviews for Views and Reviews on both sporadic miscarriage and recurrent miscarriage. The series starts with the prevalence of miscarriage and recurrent miscarriage and subsequently describes the psychological impact, what we know of the genetics, whether uterine natural killer cells may play a role, the association with infections, and potential interventions.

Role of infections in miscarriage.

Infections with certain pathogens can lead to perinatal complications. Several infections have been also associated with an increased likelihood of miscarriage. This manuscript discusses these infections, their modes of transmission, the evidence linking them to an increased risk of miscarriage, and whether prevention or treatment strategies are available.