Impact of overweight and obesity in the fetal cardiac function parameters in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of overweight and obesity in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy on fetal cardiac function parameters. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of 374 singleton pregnant women between 20w0d and 36w6d divided into three groups: 154 controls (body mass index - BMI < 25 kg/m2), 140 overweight (BMI 25-30 kg/m2) and 80 obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). Fetal left ventricular (LV) modified myocardial performance index (Mod-MPI) was calculated according to the following formula: (isovolumetric contraction time + isovolumetric relaxation time)/ejection time. Spectral tissue Doppler was used to determine LV and right ventricular (RV) myocardial performance index (MPI'), peak myocardial velocity during systole (S'), early diastole (E'), and late diastole (A'). RESULTS: We found significant differences between the groups in maternal age (p < 0.001), maternal weight (p < 0.001), BMI (p < 0.001), number of pregnancies (p < 0.001), parity (p < 0.001), gestational age (p = 0.013), and estimated fetal weight (p = 0.003). Overweight pregnant women had higher LV Mod-MPI (0.046 versus 0.044 seconds, p = 0.009) and LV MPI' (0.50 versus 0.47 seconds, p < 0.001) than the control group. Obese pregnant women had higher RV E' than control (6.82 versus 6.33 cm/sec, p = 0.008) and overweight (6.82 versus 6.46 cm/sec, p = 0.047) groups. There were no differences in 5-min APGAR score < 7, neonatal intensive care unit admission, hypoglycemia and hyperglobulinemia between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: We observed fetal myocardial dysfunction in overweight and obese pregnant women with higher LV Mod-MPI, LV MPI' and RV E' compared to fetuses from normal weight pregnant women.

Hormone therapy for sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: The perimenopausal and postmenopausal periods are associated with many symptoms, including sexual complaints. This review is an update of a review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effect of hormone therapy on sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: On 19 December 2022 we searched the Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Science, two trials registries, and OpenGrey, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field for any additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared hormone therapy to either placebo or no intervention (control) using any validated assessment tool to evaluate sexual function. We considered hormone therapy: estrogen alone; estrogen in combination with progestogens; synthetic steroids, for example, tibolone; selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), for example, raloxifene, bazedoxifene; and SERMs in combination with estrogen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We analyzed data using mean differences (MDs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs). The primary outcome was the sexual function score. Secondary outcomes were the domains of sexual response: desire; arousal; lubrication; orgasm; satisfaction; and pain. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 studies (23,299 women; 12,225 intervention group; 11,074 control group), of which 35 evaluated postmenopausal women; only one study evaluated perimenopausal women. The 'symptomatic or early postmenopausal women' subgroup included 10 studies, which included women experiencing menopausal symptoms (symptoms such as hot flushes, night sweats, sleep disturbance, vaginal atrophy, and dyspareunia) or early postmenopausal women (within five years after menopause). The 'unselected postmenopausal women' subgroup included 26 studies, which included women regardless of menopausal symptoms and women whose last menstrual period was more than five years earlier. No study included only women with sexual dysfunction and only seven studies evaluated sexual function as a primary outcome. We deemed 20 studies at high risk of bias, two studies at low risk, and the other 14 studies at unclear risk of bias. Nineteen studies received commercial funding. Estrogen alone versus control probably slightly improves the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (SMD 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.04 to 0.96; I² = 88%; 3 studies, 699 women; moderate-quality evidence), and probably makes little or no difference to the sexual function composite score in unselected postmenopausal women (SMD 0.64, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.41; I² = 94%; 6 studies, 608 women; moderate-quality evidence). The pooled result suggests that estrogen alone versus placebo or no intervention probably slightly improves sexual function composite score (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04; I² = 92%; 9 studies, 1307 women, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of estrogen combined with progestogens versus placebo or no intervention on the sexual function composite score in unselected postmenopausal women (MD 0.08 95% CI -1.52 to 1.68; 1 study, 104 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of synthetic steroids versus control on the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (SMD 1.32, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.47; 1 study, 883 women; very low-quality evidence) and of their effect in unselected postmenopausal women (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.85; 1 study, 105 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of SERMs versus control on the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (MD -1.00, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.00; 1 study, 215 women; very low-quality evidence) and of their effect in unselected postmenopausal women (MD 2.24, 95% 1.37 to 3.11 2 studies, 1525 women, I² = 1%, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of SERMs combined with estrogen versus control on the sexual function composite score in symptomatic or early postmenopausal women (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.43; 1 study, 542 women; very low-quality evidence) and of their effect in unselected postmenopausal women (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 2.41 to 3.18; 1 study, 272 women; very low-quality evidence). The observed heterogeneity in many analyses may be caused by variations in the interventions and doses used, and by different tools used for assessment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hormone therapy treatment with estrogen alone probably slightly improves the sexual function composite score in women with menopausal symptoms or in early postmenopause (within five years of amenorrhoea), and in unselected postmenopausal women, especially in the lubrication, pain, and satisfaction domains. We are uncertain whether estrogen combined with progestogens improves the sexual function composite score in unselected postmenopausal women. Evidence regarding other hormone therapies (synthetic steroids and SERMs) is of very low quality and we are uncertain of their effect on sexual function. The current evidence does not suggest the beneficial effects of synthetic steroids (for example tibolone) or SERMs alone or combined with estrogen on sexual function. More studies that evaluate the effect of estrogen combined with progestogens, synthetic steroids, SERMs, and SERMs combined with estrogen would improve the quality of the evidence for the effect of these treatments on sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

Luteal phase support for women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or sexual intercourse.

BACKGROUND: Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of luteal phase support (LPS) in infertile women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or by sexual intercourse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 25 August 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LPS using progestogen, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist supplementation in IUI or natural cycle. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate (LBR/OPR) and miscarriage.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (5111 participants). Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low to low. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting and imprecision. 1. Progesterone supplement versus placebo or no treatment  We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone increases LBR/OPR (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.48; 7 RCTs; 1792 participants; low-certainty evidence) or decreases miscarriage per pregnancy compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; 5 RCTs; 261 participants). There were no data on LBR or miscarriage with oral stimulation. We are uncertain if progesterone increases LBR/OPR in women with gonadotropin stimulation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.92; 4 RCTs; 1054 participants; low-certainty evidence) and oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64; 2 RCTs; 485 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on OPR in women with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; the evidence from this study was uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42; 1 RCT; 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Given the low certainty of the evidence, it is unclear if progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy in any stimulation protocol (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.91; 2 RCTs; 102 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 123 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14; 2 RCTs; 119 participants, with oral stimulation). Low-certainty evidence suggests that progesterone in all types of ovarian stimulation may increase clinical pregnancy compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.74; 7 RCTs; 1437 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90; 4 RCTs; 733 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole); and RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.98; 6 RCTs; 1073 participants, with oral stimulation). 2. Progesterone supplementation regimen  We are uncertain if there is any difference between 300 mg and 600 mg of vaginal progesterone for OPR and multiple pregnancy (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 RCT; 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence, respectively). No other outcomes were reported for this comparison. There were three different comparisons between progesterone regimens. For OPR, the evidence is very uncertain for intramuscular (IM) versus vaginal progesterone (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.02; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence); we are uncertain if there is any difference between oral and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.22; 1 RCT; 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.05; 1 RCT; 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if IM or oral progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy compared to vaginal progesterone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; 1 RCT; 81 participants and RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 41 participants, respectively). Clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported for all comparisons; the evidence for these outcomes was very uncertain. Only one RCT reported adverse effects. We are uncertain if IM route increases the risk of adverse effects when compared with the vaginal route (RR 9.25, 95% CI 2.21 to 38.78; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 3. GnRH agonist versus placebo or no treatment  No trials reported live birth. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GnRH agonist in ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 RCT; 291 participants, very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.10; 2 RCTs; 79 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 2 RCTs; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; 2 RCTs; 126 participants). 4. GnRH agonist versus vaginal progesterone  The evidence for the effect of GnRH agonist injection on clinical pregnancy is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.95; 1 RCT; 242 participants). 5. HCG injection versus no treatment  The evidence for the effect of hCG injection on clinical pregnancy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.13; 1 RCT; 130 participants) and multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.92; 1 RCT; 130 participants) is very uncertain. 6. Luteal support in natural cycle No study evaluated the effect of LPS in natural cycle. We could not perform sensitivity analyses, as there were no studies at low risk of selection bias and not at high risk in other domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone supplementation during luteal phase is associated with a higher live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate. Vaginal progesterone may increase clinical pregnancy rate; however, its effect on miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate is uncertain. We are uncertain if IM progesterone improves ongoing pregnancy rates or decreases miscarriage rate when compared to vaginal progesterone. Regarding the other reported comparisons, neither oral progesterone nor any other medication appears to be associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes (very low-certainty evidence).

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.

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.

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.

References Values of Fetal Heart Myocardial Volume by Three-Dimensional Ultrasound using Spatiotemporal Image Correlation and Virtual Organ Computer-Aided Analysis Methods and Their Applicability in Pregestational Diabetic Women.

OBJECTIVE: To determine reference values for myocardial volume of the fetal heart using three-dimensional ultrasound with spatiotemporal image correlation (STIC) and virtual organ computer-aided analysis (VOCAL) and to assess their applicability in women with pregestational diabetes. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 177 normal pregnant women with fetuses between 200/7 and 336/7 weeks of age. Fetal cardiac volumes were collected using the STIC method, and myocardial volume was obtained by subtraction of the intracavitary volumes using the VOCAL 30-degree method. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility values were determined using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Sixteen women with pregestational diabetes mellitus were evaluated for validation. RESULTS: There was a strong correlation between fetal myocardial volume and gestational age (R 2 = 0.82). Intra- and interobserver reproducibility values were excellent and moderate, respectively, with CCCs of 0.99 and 0.83, respectively. There was no significant difference in mean fetal myocardial volume between normal pregnant women and those with pregestational diabetes (p = 0.64). CONCLUSION: Reference values for myocardial volume of the fetal heart were determined in normal pregnant women and were not statistically different from those in women with pregestational diabetes mellitus.

Conservative vs radical bowel surgery for endometriosis: A systematic analysis of complications.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis of the bowel can be associated with significant morbidity. Surgery to remove it carries risks. Options include conservative shaving or discoid resection and more radical segmental bowel resection. AIMS: To determine if more conservative shaving or discoid bowel resection is associated with fewer risks than more radical segmental resection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study is a systematic review. We considered eligible any cohort, observational or randomised controlled trial (RCT) study of at least ten women per arm comparing conservative vs radical bowel surgery for endometriosis. We divided complications into two groups, major and minor. One additional article was added due to its significance in answering our study question as well as the high quality of the study design as an RCT. RESULTS: There were 3041 studies screened. Eleven studies were included (n = 1648). For major complications, the risk ratio for shaving and disc excision vs segmental resection is 0.31 (95% CI 0.21-0.46), while the risk difference is -0.25 (95% CI -0.41 to 0.10). For minor complications, the risk ratio is 0.63 (95% CI 0.36-1.09), while the risk difference is -0.03 (95% CI -0.12 to 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Conservative shaving or discoid excision surgery is associated with reduced complications. Previous studies demonstrated a trend toward this finding, but suffered from relatively low participant numbers, increasing the risk of type one statistical error. Our results allow surgeons to make informed choices about potential complications when deciding how to approach bowel endometriosis. The results also allow patients to have more information about the risks. However, outcomes in the studies analysed are heterogenous and are from low-quality evidence.

Regular (ICSI) versus ultra-high magnification (IMSI) sperm selection for assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Subfertility is a condition found in up to 15% of couples of reproductive age. Gamete micromanipulation, such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), is very useful for treating couples with compromised sperm parameters. An alternative method of sperm selection has been described; the spermatozoa are selected under high magnification (over 6000x) and used for ICSI. This technique, named intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI), has a theoretical potential to improve reproductive outcomes among couples undergoing assisted reproduction techniques (ART). However, our previous version of this Cochrane Review was unable to find evidence that supported this possible beneficial effect. This is an update of Teixeira 2013. OBJECTIVES: To identify, appraise, and summarise the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety of IMSI compared to ICSI in couples undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in these electronic databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and in these trial registers: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also handsearched the reference lists of included studies and similar reviews. We performed the last electronic search on 18 November 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only considered RCTs that compared ICSI and IMSI; we did not include quasi-randomised trials. We considered studies that permitted the inclusion of the same participant more than once (cross-over or per cycle trials) only if data regarding the first treatment of each participant were available. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias and quality of the evidence; we solved disagreements by consulting a third review author. We corresponded with study investigators to resolve any queries, as required. MAIN RESULTS: The updated search retrieved 535 records; we included 13 parallel-designed RCTs comparing IMSI and ICSI (four studies were added since the previous version), comprising 2775 couples (IMSI = 1256; ICSI = 1519). We are uncertain if IMSI improves live birth rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.39; 5 studies, 929 couples; I² = 1%), miscarriage rates per couple (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.48; 10 studies, 2297 couples; I² = 0%, very-low quality evidence), and miscarriage rate per pregnancy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20; 10 studies, 783 couples; I² = 0%, very-low quality evidence). We are uncertain if IMSI improves clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; 13 studies, 2775 couples; I² = 47%, very-low quality evidence). None of the included studies reported congenital abnormalities. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be of very low-quality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence due to limitations of the included studies (risk of bias), inconsistency of results, and a strong indication of publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support or refute the clinical use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI). We are very uncertain of the chances of having a live birth and of the risk of having a miscarriage. We found very low-quality evidence that IMSI may increase chances of a clinical pregnancy, which means that we are still very uncertain about any real difference. We did not find any trials reporting on the risk of congenital abnormalities. Well-designed and sufficiently powered trials are still required.

Reference ranges for the fetal mitral, tricuspid, and interventricular septum annular plane systolic excursions (mitral annular plane systolic excursion, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, and septum annular plane systolic excursion) between 20 and 36 + 6 weeks of gestation.

Objectives This study aimed to establish reference ranges for fetal mitral, tricuspid, and interventricular septum annular plane systolic excursions (MAPSE, TAPSE, and SAPSE) in normal pregnant women between 20 and 36 + 6 weeks of gestation. Methods This prospective and cross-sectional study included 360 low-risk singleton pregnancies between 20 and 36 + 6 weeks of gestation. MAPSE, TAPSE, and SAPSE were measured by M-mode in real time in an apical or basal four-chamber view through placing the cursor at the atrioventricular junction, marked by the valve rings at the tricuspid, mitral, and basal septum, respectively. A regression analysis was done to determine the appropriate polynomial equation model for both measurements and standard deviation (SD) values in relation to gestational age (GA). The intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was evaluated using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and limits of agreement (LoA). Results There was a significant positive correlation between MAPSE (r=0.705, p<0.0001), TAPSE (r=0.804, p<0.0001), and SAPSE (r=0.690, p<0.0001) and GA. The mean of each parameter ranged as follows: 2.87-5.56 mm, MAPSE; 3.98-8.07 mm, TAPSE; and 2.34-4.21 mm, SAPSE. Poor/moderate intra- and inter-observer reliability (CCC between 0.70 and 0.90) and poor/moderate agreement of all the tested parameters were evaluated (LoA between 10 and 50%). Conclusions Reference values were established for the fetal MAPSE, TAPSE, and SAPSE between 20 and 36 + 6 weeks of gestation in low-risk pregnant women. These parameters showed poor/moderate reproducibility.

Reference range of fetal myocardial area by three-dimensional ultrasonography and its applicability in fetuses of pre-gestational diabetic women.

Objective To determine the reference range for the myocardial area in healthy fetuses using three-dimensional (3D) ultrasonography and validate these results in fetuses of pregnant women with pre-gestational diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods This cross-sectional retrospective study included 168 healthy pregnant women between gestational weeks 20 and 33+6 days. The myocardial area was measured using spatio-temporal image correlation (STIC) in the four-chamber view. Polynomial regression models were used, and the goodness of fit of the models were evaluated by the coefficient of determination (R2). Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was determined using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Validation was performed in 30 pregnant women with pre-gestational DM. Results There was a strong correlation (R2=0.71, P<0.0001) between myocardial area and gestational age. There was good intra- and inter-observer reproducibility, with a CCC of 0.86 and 0.83, respectively. However, there was no significant difference in the mean myocardial area between healthy fetuses and fetuses of women with pre-gestational DM (0.11 cm2, P=0.55). Conclusion The reference range was determined for the myocardial area in fetuses, and there was no significant difference in this variable between healthy fetuses and the fetuses of women with pre-gestational DM.

Inter-Rater Reliability of Air/Saline HyCoSy, HyFoSy and HyFoSy Combined With Power Doppler for Screening Tubal Patency.

PURPOSE: To estimate the inter-observer reliability and agreement of offline analyses of three different ultrasound techniques for assessing tubal patency. METHODS: 100 tubes (n = 100) in 50 women were evaluated for tubal patency between November 2013 and July 2015 using ultrasound as index tests and laparoscopy as the reference standard. Three different ultrasound techniques were applied: two-dimensional grayscale ultrasound using air + saline as the contrast media (2D-HyCoSy); two- and three-dimensional grayscale ultrasound using foam as the contrast media (2 D/3D-HyFoSy); and the same technique but adding bi-directional power Doppler (2 D/3D-Doppler-HyFoSy). The videos containing full standardized exams using these three techniques were split into three parts, anonymized, encoded, randomized and reassessed in Nov. 2015 by two observers who assessed tubal patency using standardized criteria. These observers were blinded to any clinical information and each other's results. Proportions of observed agreement (po) and Cohen's Kappa (κ) including the 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: The inter-observer reliability/agreement in 2 D/3D-Doppler-HyFoSy (po = 0.99, κ = 0.95, 95 % CI: 0.93 - 0.97) was higher compared to 2D-air/saline-HyCoSy (po = 0.83, κ = 0.55, 95 % CI: 0.40 - 0.68) and 2 D/3D-HyFoSy (po = 0.92, κ = 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.54 - 0.76). CONCLUSION: The inter-observer reliability and agreement of the diagnosis of tubal patency evaluating stored videos are improved when foam and power Doppler are used during acquisition. Therefore, this technique may be preferred to minimize misclassification and misdiagnosis.

Evaluation of fetal heart geometry during pregnancy by three-dimensional ultrasound using the STIC rendering mode.

OBJECTIVE: To determine fetal heart geometry during pregnancy using three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound and the spatiotemporal image correlation (STIC) rendering mode. METHODS: This prospective, cross-sectional study evaluated 250 normal singleton pregnancies from 20 to 33 weeks and 6 days of gestation. STIC rendering was used to calculate the eight angles of the fetal heart: apex, base, mitral valve, tricuspid valve, left ventricle, right ventricle, left atrium, and right atrium angles. The concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was used for intra- and inter-observer tests. RESULTS: The average ± SD maternal age was 31.7 ± 4.9 years, and the average gestational age was 26.3 ± 4.2 weeks. There was little variation in fetal heart angles using STIC rendering according to the gestational age, with determination coefficient (R2 ) values of 0.01 for the apex and mitral valve angles and <0.01 for the base, tricuspid valve, left ventricle, right ventricle, left atrium, and right atrium angles. Moderate/good intra- and inter-observer concordance was observed for the measurement of fetal heart angles using STIC rendering, and the obtained CCC varied from 0.74 to 0.93. CONCLUSION: The fetal heart geometry did not present significant variations during pregnancy using 3D ultrasound and the STIC rendering mode.

Understanding the Influence of Flow Velocity, Wall Motion Filter, Pulse Repetition Frequency, and Aliasing on Power Doppler Image Quantification.

OBJECTIVES: Although power Doppler imaging has been used to quantify tissue and organ vascularity, many studies showed that limitations in defining adequate ultrasound machine settings and attenuation make such measurements complex to be achieved. However, most of these studies were conducted by using the output of proprietary software, such as Virtual Organ computer-aided analysis (GE Healthcare, Kretz, Zipf, Austria); therefore, many conclusions may not be generalizable because of unknown settings and parameters used by the software. To overcome this limitation, our goal was to evaluate the impact of the flow velocity, pulse repetition frequency (PRF), and wall motion filter (WMF) on power Doppler image quantification using beam-formed ultrasonic radiofrequency data. METHODS: The setup consisted of a blood-mimicking fluid flowing through a phantom. Radiofrequency signals were collected using PRFs ranging from 0.6 to 10 kHz for 6 different flow velocities (5-40 cm/s). Wall motion filter cutoff frequencies were varied between 50 and 250 Hz. RESULTS: The power Doppler magnitude was deeply influenced by the WMF cutoff frequency. The effect of using different WMF values varied with the PRF; therefore, the power Doppler signal intensity was dependent on the PRF. Finally, we verified that power Doppler quantification can be affected by the aliasing effect, especially when using a PRF lower than 1.3 kHz. CONCLUSIONS: The WMF and PRF greatly influenced power Doppler quantification, mainly when flow velocities lower than 20 cm/s were used. Although the experiments were conducted in a nonclinical environment, the evaluated parameters are equivalent to those used in clinical practice, which makes them valuable for aiding the interpretation of related data in future research.

Prediction of Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy Using Offline Analysis of 3-Dimensional Transvaginal Ultrasonographic Data Sets: An Interobserver and Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess interobserver reproducibility in detecting tubal ectopic pregnancies by reading data sets from 3-dimensional (3D) transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) and comparing it with real-time 2-dimensional (2D) TVUS. METHODS: Images were initially classified as showing pregnancies of unknown location or tubal ectopic pregnancies on real time 2D TVUS by an experienced sonologist, who acquired 5 3D volumes. Data sets were analyzed offline by 5 observers who had to classify each case as ectopic pregnancy or pregnancy of unknown location. The interobserver reproducibility was evaluated by the Fleiss κ statistic. The performance of each observer in predicting ectopic pregnancies was compared to that of the experienced sonologist. Women were followed until they were reclassified as follows: (1) failed pregnancy of unknown location; (2) intrauterine pregnancy; (3) ectopic pregnancy; or (4) persistent pregnancy of unknown location. RESULTS: Sixty-one women were included. The agreement between reading offline 3D data sets and the first real-time 2D TVUS was very good (80%-82%; κ = 0.89). The overall interobserver agreement among observers reading offline 3D data sets was moderate (κ = 0.52). The diagnostic performance of experienced observers reading offline 3D data sets had accuracy of 78.3% to 85.0%, sensitivity of 66.7% to 81.3%, specificity of 79.5% to 88.4%, positive predictive value of 57.1% to 72.2%, and negative predictive value of 87.5% to 91.3%, compared to the experienced sonologist's real-time 2D TVUS: accuracy of 94.5%, sensitivity of 94.4%, specificity of 94.5%, positive predictive value of 85.0%, and negative predictive value of 98.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of 3D TVUS by reading offline data sets for predicting ectopic pregnancies is dependent on experience. Reading only static 3D data sets without clinical information does not match the diagnostic performance of real time 2D TVUS combined with clinical information obtained during the scan.

Second Trimester Screening of Preeclampsia Using Maternal Characteristics and Uterine and Ophthalmic Artery Doppler.

PURPOSE: To establish the performance of a multi-parametric test including maternal risk factors and maternal uterine and ophthalmic artery Doppler in the second trimester of pregnancy for the prediction of preeclampsia (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective observational cohort study with pregnant women who underwent a second trimester morphology scan. Maternal uterine and ophthalmic artery Doppler examinations were performed in 415 singleton pregnancies between 18 and 23 weeks of gestation. Additional history was obtained through participant questionnaires, and follow-up occurred to the time of discharge post-delivery. The control and PE groups were compared to continuous variables using the Kruskal-Wallis test and to categorical variables using the Chi-square and Fisher exact tests. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the best model for the prediction of PE. RESULTS: 40 (9.6 %) pregnant women developed PE. We observed significant differences in the body mass index (BMI) (p < 0.001), parity (p < 0.001), mean arterial pressure (MAP) (p < 0.001), and pulsatility index (PI) of uterine artery Doppler (p < 0.001) between PE and control groups. The best model for the prediction of PE included maternal characteristics, MAP, maternal uterine and ophthalmic artery Doppler with area under receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve of 0.710 (95 % confidence interval, 613 - 0.807) with a sensitivity of 45 % to a false-positive rate of 10 % and 35 % to a false-positive rate of 5 %. CONCLUSION: Maternal ophthalmic artery Doppler did not promote a significant increase in the PE detection rate during the second trimester scan.

Pain Intensity During Ultrasound Assessment of Uterine Cavity and Tubal Patency With and Without Painkillers: Prospective Observational Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the pain intensity and incidence of mild to severe pain during the ultrasound assessment of the uterine cavity and tubal patency using saline, air and saline, and foam as contrasts with and without painkiller. DESIGN: Prospective observational study (Canadian Task Force classification II-1). SETTING: Private clinic. PATIENTS: Three hundred infertile women who were consecutively submitted to uterine cavity and tubal patency assessment by ultrasound using saline, air, and foam in single exam between October 2012 and November 2013. INTERVENTIONS: No painkillers were used until March 2013 when we started offering an effervescent codeine tablet containing paracetamol 500 mg and codeine phosphate 30 mg approximately 1 hour before the procedure. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pain intensity measured with an 11-point (0-10) numerical rating scale and incidence of moderate/severe levels of pain (numerical rating scale > 3) during the main components of the procedure (speculum insertion, catheter insertion, saline infusion, air and saline infusion, foam infusion, and after the procedure [0 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, and 24 hours]) were assessed. The incidence of moderatesevere pain was significantly lower in women using painkillers considering any moment of the procedure: 49 of 175 (28%) versus 65 of 125 (52%); relative risk, .54; 95% confidence interval, .40-.72; p < .001; number needed to treat, 4. Less women presented with moderate/severe pain during air and saline compared with foam infusion: 31 of 300 (10%) versus 75 of 300 (25%); p < .001; relative risk, .41, 95% confidence interval, .28-.61. CONCLUSION: The incidence of moderate/severe pain during the ultrasound assessment of the uterine cavity and tubal patency is common. Our results suggest that using paracetamol + codeine before the procedure reduces the pain level, but randomized controlled trials are required.

Simple approach based on maternal characteristics and mean arterial pressure for the prediction of preeclampsia in the first trimester of pregnancy.

AIM: To propose a simple model for predicting preeclampsia (PE) in the 1st trimester of pregnancy on the basis of maternal characteristics (MC) and mean arterial pressure (MAP). METHODS: A prospective cohort was performed to predict PE between 11 and 13+6 weeks of gestation. The MC evaluated were maternal age, skin color, parity, previous PE, smoking, family history of PE, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and body mass index (BMI). Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) was measured at the time of the 1st trimester ultrasound. The outcome measures were the incidences of total PE, preterm PE (delivery <37 weeks) and term PE (delivery ≥37 weeks). We performed logistic regression analysis to determine which factors made significant contributions for the prediction of the three outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed 733 pregnant women; 55 developed PE, 21 of those developed preterm PE and 34 term PE. For total PE, the best model was MC+MAP, which had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC ROC) of 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.76-0.82]. For preterm PE, the best model was MC+MAP, with an AUC ROC of 0.84 (95% CI=0.81-0.87). For term PE, the best model was MC, with an AUC ROC of 0.75 (0.72-0.79). The MC+MAP model demonstrated a detection rate of 67% cases of preterm PE, with a false-positive rate of 10%, positive predictive value of 17% and negative predictive value of 99%. CONCLUSION: The MC+MAP model showed good accuracy in predicting preterm PE in the 1st trimester of gestation.

Reference Ranges of Fetal Cardiac Biometric Parameters Using Three-Dimensional Ultrasound with Spatiotemporal Image Correlation M Mode and Their Applicability in Congenital Heart Diseases.

To determine reference values for fetal heart biometric parameters using the spatiotemporal image correlation (STIC) M mode and their applicability in congenital heart diseases (CHDs). A cross-sectional prospective study was conducted with 300 singleton pregnancies between 20 and 33 + 6 weeks of gestation. Right ventricular wall thickness (RVWT), interventricular septum thickness (IVST), and left ventricular wall thickness (LVWT) were measured off-line using the STIC-M mode with the cursor perpendicular to the interventricular septum. Polynomial regressions adjusted with the coefficient of determination (R 2) were performed. The curves were applied to 14 fetuses with structural CHD. For the reproducibility calculations, the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was used. The mean RVWT, IVST, and LVWT were 0.34 ± 0.09 cm, 0.28 ± 0.09 cm, and 0.30 ± 0.07 cm, respectively. There was correlation between RVWT, IVST, and LVWT and gestational age (GA): RVWT = -0.002 + 0.013 × GA (R 2 = 0.33), IVST = -0.011 + 0.011 × GA (R 2 = 0.25), and LVWT = 0.056 + 0.009 × GA (R 2 = 0.26). RVWT, IVST, and LVWT were altered (<5th or >95th percentile) in 5/14, 5/14, and 7/14 of the fetuses with CHD, respectively. For RVWT, IVST, and LVWT, intra-observer (CCC = 0.86, 0.85, and 0.87, respectively) and inter-observer (CCC = 0.86, 0.86, and 0.86, respectively) reproducibility were good/moderate. The reference ranges determined for fetal heart biometric parameters using STIC-M had good intra- and inter-observer reproducibility and were applicable to fetuses with CHD.

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.