Applying a simplified economic evaluation approach to evaluate infertility treatments in clinical practice.

IVF is the backbone of infertility treatment, but due to its costs, it is not affordable for everyone. The cost of IVF is further escalated by interventions added to the routine treatment, which are claimed to boost pregnancy rates, so-called add-ons. Consequently, it is critical to offset the increased costs of an intervention against a potentially higher benefit. Here, we propose using a simplified framework considering the cost of a standard IVF procedure to create one live-born baby as a benchmark for the cost-effectiveness of other fertility treatments, add-ons inclusive. This framework is a simplified approach to a formal economic evaluation, enabling a rapid assessment of cost effectiveness in clinical settings. For a 30-year-old woman, assuming a 44.6% cumulative live birth rate and a cost of $12 000 per complete cycle, the cost to create one live-born baby would be ∼$27 000 (i.e. willingness to pay). Under this concept, the decision whether to accept or reject a new treatment depends from an economic perspective on the incremental cost per additional live birth from the new treatment/add-on, with the $27 000 per live-born baby as a reference threshold. This threshold can vary with women's age, and other factors such as the economic perspective and risk of side effects can play a role. If a new add-on or treatment costs >$27 000 per live birth, it might be more rational to invest in a new IVF cycle rather than spending on the add-on. With the increasing number of novel technologies in IVF and the lack of a rapid approach to evaluate their cost-effectiveness, this simplified framework will help with a more objective assessment of the cost-effectiveness of infertility treatments, including add-ons.

Moral justification for the use of 'add-ons' in assisted reproductive technology: experts' views and experiences.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What factors do assisted reproductive terchnology (ART) providers take into account when they make decisions about offering 'add-ons'? DESIGN: A qualitative analysis of interviews with 31 ART professionals, focusing on their views and experiences in relation to add-ons, including the factors that are considered when doctors make decisions about their use. RESULTS: The participants reported that a range of considerations are taken into account when it comes to justifying the use of a particular add-on in a given circumstance, including the likelihood of benefit and harm, patients' perceived psychological needs and preferences, and organizational expectations. Importantly, patient preferences, psychological factors and low risk of harm appear to be stronger motivations than increasing the likelihood of a live birth or the desire to innovate. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that it cannot be taken for granted that add-ons and innovation are closely linked. One possible response to this would be regulatory reform; for example, only allowing 'unproven' add-ons to be used in the context of formal scientific evaluation. Alternatively, it could be made clear that add-ons that are not undergoing formal evaluation have more in common with other therapies lacking a clear evidence base, such as complementary and alternative medicines, than with conventional medical practice. Practices in relation to add-ons may also require a focus on the responsibilities of corporations, and the standards applying to purveyors of consumer goods and services.

Optimizing intrauterine insemination: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of clinical treatment add-ons.

INTRODUCTION: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most widespread fertility treatments. However, IUI protocols vary significantly amongst fertility clinics. Various add-on interventions have been proposed to boost success rates. These are mostly chosen arbitrarily or empirically. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness and safety of add-on interventions to the standard IUI protocol and to provide evidence-based recommendations on techniques used to optimize the clinical outcomes of IUI treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses were performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A computerized literature search was performed from database inception to May 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included reporting on couples/single women undergoing IUI with any protocol for any indication using partner's or donor sperm. A meta-analysis based on random effects was performed for each outcome and add-on. Three authors independently assessed the trials for quality and risk of bias and overall certainty of evidence. Uncertainties were resolved through consensus. Primary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) or live birth rate (LBR) per cycle/per woman randomized. Registration number PROSPERO: CRD42022300857. RESULTS: Sixty-six RCTs were included in the analysis (16 305 participants across 20 countries). Vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support in stimulated cycles was found to significantly increase LBR/OPR (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09-1.72, I2 = 4.9%) (moderate/low certainty of the evidence). Endometrial scratch prior/during stimulated IUI cycles may increase LBR/OPR (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.03-2.01, I2 = 1.8%), but evidence is very uncertain. Results from two studies suggest that follicular phase ovarian stimulation increases LBR/OPR (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.00-1.94, I2 = 0%) (low certainty of evidence). No significant difference was seen for the primary outcome for the other studied interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that vaginal luteal phase progesterone support probably improves LBR/OPR in stimulated IUI treatments. In view of moderate/low certainty of the evidence more research is needed for solid conclusions. Further research is also recommended for the use of endometrial scratch and ovarian stimulation. Future studies should report on results according to subfertility background as it is possible that different add-ons could benefit specific patient groups.

Assessment of embryologist sufficiency and associated regional disparities in Japanese assisted reproduction facilities using nationwide survey data (IZANAMI project).

AIMS: This study aims to comprehensively examine the employment and practices of embryologists in Japan's assisted reproductive technology (ART) laboratories, focusing on the impact of various factors such as ART cycle numbers, add-ons, and regional differences. Additionally, it seeks to assess the extent to which Japanese ART facilities meet international minimum standards set by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). METHODS: A survey was conducted from December 2021 to February 2022 among 621 ART facilities in Japan. The study categorized facilities into five ART cycle groups and compared the number of embryologists across these groups. It also examined the correlation between the number of embryologists, ART cycles, add-ons, and regional differences. Data were analyzed using linear regression and multiple linear regression analyses. RESULTS: The study's findings revealed a significant correlation between the total number of embryologists at each facility and the ART cycles. Notably, there were significant differences in the number of embryologists across all ART cycle categories. Of the 435 facilities, only 44.6% met the ASRM minimum embryologist staffing requirement. The regression analysis further highlighted the significance of ART cycles and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies as factors. Moreover, the number of embryologists stationed at urban facilities was significantly higher than at nonurban facilities, indicating a potential regional disparity. CONCLUSION: In Japan, it was first found that more than 50% of ART facilities do not have sufficient embryologists in place relative to the number of ART cycles. Furthermore, the add-ons and regional differences affect the placement of embryologists.

Fact-finding survey on assisted reproductive technology in Japan.

AIMS: In anticipation of the future development of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and to smoothly introduce new technology, it is necessary to understand the current staffing status of the medical system and the current state of treatment, as well as the status of in vitro fertilization add-ons, where the need for insurance coverage is currently a matter of debate. METHODS: ART facilities in Japan were surveyed (437 valid responses, response rate: 71%). Current staffing status of the medical system, implementation rates of ART, add-on treatments, and medical supplies were investigated. RESULTS: Despite the abundance of embryologists, nurses, and obstetricians and gynecologists in facilities, the majority of facilities lacked counselors, anesthesiologists, and other essential medical professionals. Conventional ovarian stimulation was widely adopted (median 120 [interquartile range 60-300] cycles), followed by mild ovarian simulation (60 [30-200]). Additionally, freeze-thaw embryo transfer cycles (300 [120-750]) were performed more frequently than fresh embryo transfer cycles (30 [30-60]). Among the add-ons, assisted hatching (85.1%), chronic endometritis examination (77.2%) and treatment (76.9%), artificial oocyte activation (67.3%), endometrial receptivity analysis (64.2%), and endometrial microbiome analysis (58.9%) were relatively widely employed. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles, freeze-all strategies, and add-on treatments have become popular and widely accepted despite the lack of robust evidence regarding their safety and efficacy.

Passion, pressure and pragmatism: how fertility clinic medical directors view IVF add-ons.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the views of the medical directors of fertility clinics on IVF add-ons? DESIGN: A total of 93 UK clinics were emailed with an invitation for their medical director to participate. Ten IVF clinic medical directors were interviewed to discuss their views on the use of IVF add-ons. Some of the interviewees were medical directors of an IVF clinic with multiple branches across the UK, meaning the total number of clinics accounted for in this study was 35 out of the 93 contacted. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The participants consisted of seven males and three females, with six from solely private clinics and four with NHS and private patients. Four themes were identified: clinical decision-making and the patient-doctor relationship; regulations and the add-on traffic light system; research and evidence; and commercialization and financialization of the IVF sector. CONCLUSIONS: UK IVF medical directors had a wide variety of views and experienced different pressures to offer IVF add-ons. The add-on discussion touches on core aspects of professional identity and the meaning of medical practice. The add-on debate points to broader changes in the organization of the IVF sector, which affect key aspects of practising (reproductive) medicine, including the patient-doctor relationship and responsibility for clinical decision-making, and the relationship between regulator and IVF clinic and between scientific evidence and clinical practice.

The efficacy of add-ons: selected IVF "add-on" procedures and future directions.

Since the advent of ART, technology has continuously evolved to improve embryology and pregnancy outcomes. However, not all technologies that are integrated into practice have convincing evidence of clinical effectiveness, and they often increase the financial burden of fertility care. We discuss here a selection of commonly utilized IVF "add-ons" and discuss the existing evidence for their utility. The procedures included in this review are time-lapse imaging of embryos, assisted hatching, EmbryoGlue, sperm DNA testing, egg activation with calcium ionophore, endometrial receptivity array, and physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection (PICSI). While there is rather limited supporting evidence for nearly all IVF add-ons that we reviewed, there is strong demand from patients, physicians, and the biotechnology industry to continue further research and development in this arena. We propose that all add-on procedures should provide true efficacy for the patient, and reproductive endocrinologists should inform patients of the costs and benefits of utilizing various technologies before they undergo treatment. In the future, add-ons that show clear evidence of efficacy and justifiable cost should be incorporated into routine practice, while others that do not meet these criteria should be phased out entirely.

Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice.

Ethical considerations are central to all medicine though, likely, nowhere more essential than in the practice of reproductive endocrinology and infertility. Through in vitro fertilization (IVF), this is the only field in medicine involved in creating human life. IVF has, indeed, so far led to close to 10 million births worldwide. Yet, relating to substantial changes in clinical practice of IVF, the medical literature has remained surprisingly quiet over the last two decades. Major changes especially since 2010, however, call for an updated commentary. Three key changes deserve special notice: Starting out as a strictly medical service, IVF in recent years, in efforts to expand female reproductive lifespans in a process given the term "planned" oocyte cryopreservation, increasingly became more socially motivated. The IVF field also increasingly underwent industrialization and commoditization by outside financial interests. Finally, at least partially driven by industrialization and commoditization, so-called add-ons, the term describing mostly unvalidated tests and procedures added to IVF since 2010, have been held responsible for worldwide declines in fresh, non-donor live birthrates after IVF, to levels not seen since the mid-1990s. We here, therefore, do not offer a review of bioethical considerations regarding IVF as a fertility treatment, but attempt to point out ethical issues that arose because of major recent changes in clinical IVF practice.

Surveys of clinician and patient attitudes to an add-on for in vitro fertilisation.

BACKGROUND: Add-ons at the time of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) have become commonplace, despite a general lack of evidence that they are effective and safe. The 'Colorado Protocol' is a commonly used add-on consisting of aspirin, steroid and an antibiotic. Before commencing planning for a clinical trial evaluating the Colorado Protocol, researchers and funders need evidence that the Colorado Protocol is being prescribed, and to be assured that sufficient numbers of participants can be recruited for a clinical trial. AIMS: To survey fertility clinicians and patients on attitudes toward use of add-ons during IVF, willingness of patients to be randomly assigned to an add-on trial treatment or placebo, and what would be the clinically meaningful outcomes, using the Colorado Protocol as a test case. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two online surveys were conducted: clinicians from fertility clinics across the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand; and patients from Auckland-based clinics and NZ patient support groups. RESULTS: Of 58 clinicians, 44 (75%) had recommended an add-on within the preceding year. Thirty-nine (67%) clinicians were aware of the Colorado Protocol, with 17 (29%) having recommended it within the preceding year. Of the 289 patients, 80% indicated willingness to take trial medications during IVF, and 68% were willing to be randomly assigned to the placebo arm of a trial. The median perceived minimum clinically important difference in live births in both samples was 5%. CONCLUSIONS: A future trial of this add-on in IVF would be supported by patients in the context of the New Zealand fertility healthcare system.

Enacting evidence-based medicine in fertility care: Tensions between commercialisation and knowledge standardisation.

In this article we explore the recent enactment of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the field of fertility care. We aim to contribute to the medical sociology literature through an analysis of how evidence is produced, interpreted and institutionalised in a relatively new medical field such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF), characterised by high uncertainty due to limited knowledge and high levels of commercialisation. Drawing on extensive ethnographic research conducted in England, this article explores the challenges IVF professionals encounter in producing credible data on the effectiveness of additional treatments, offering novel insights on the tensions between commercialisation and standardisation in the enactment of EBM. Extant medical sociology and Science and Technology Studies literature has shown the hidden professional work required to enact randomised control trials in practice. Our analysis shows that this hidden work is not enough when there is a broader lack of standardisation in both clinical and research practices, as producing 'good quality' evidence requires high levels of standardisation of knowledge production.

Live birth achieved despite the absence of ejaculated spermatozoa and mature oocytes retrieved: a case report.

The most common reason for in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle cancelation is a lack of quality gametes available for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Here we present the successful fertility treatment of the couple affected by obstructive azoospermia combined with suboptimal response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Since the conventional approach appeared ineffective to overcome both partners' specific problems, the targeted interventions, namely, (1) pharmacological enhancement of sperm motility and (2) polarized light microscopy (PLM)-guided optimization of ICSI time, were applied to rescue the cycle with only immature oocytes and immotile testicular sperm retrieved. The treatment with theophylline aided the selection of viable spermatozoa derived from cryopreserved testicular tissue. When the traditional stimulation protocol failed to produce mature eggs, non-invasive spindle imaging was employed to adjust the sperm injection time to the maturational stage of oocytes extruding a polar body in vitro. The fertilization of 12 late-maturing oocytes yielded 5 zygotes, which all developed into blastocysts. One embryo was transferred into the uterus on day 5 post-fertilization, and another 3 good quality blastocysts were vitrified for later use. The pregnancy resulted in a full-term delivery of a healthy child. This case demonstrates that the individualization beyond the standard IVF protocols should be considered to maximize the chance of poor-prognosis patients to achieve pregnancy with their own gametes.

Should we still offer elective freezing of all embryos in all IVF cycles?

Elective 'freeze all', also called 'freeze only', refers to an IVF cycle where all embryos are frozen for later embryo transfer in a non-stimulated cycle, with the promise of increased success rates and prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in most patients. However, 'freeze all' is associated with significantly higher perinatal complications including eclampsia, preeclampsia, chronic hypertension and large-for-gestational-age infants, without the demonstrated advantages of providing better results, except for a decrease in the incidence of OHSS, which should matter to women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and high responders to ovarian stimulation but not to all patients. 'Freeze all' is also suggested for all simulated IVF cycles, due to the alleged 'faulty endometrium' caused by ovarian stimulation. However, there is no direct evidence that asynchronous endometrium exists, and only if preovulatory progesterone level increase, can 'freeze all' confer an advantage. We conclude that an alleged diagnosis of 'faulty endometrium' should not be used as an indication for 'freeze all'. To offset the risk of OHSS more simply, less costly and less risky solutions such as mild ovarian stimulation, to dampen the number of oocytes and to aim for transfer of a single blastocyst, should be the preferred solution to treat women with PCOS and high responders for oocyte retrieval.

The prevalence, promotion and pricing of three IVF add-ons on fertility clinic websites.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How are IVF clinic websites advertising three common IVF add-ons: assisted hatching, time-lapse embryo imaging and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A)? DESIGN: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority 'Choose a fertility clinic' website service was used to identify IVF clinics and their websites. Assisted hatching, time-lapse embryo imaging and PGT-A were examined to determine which websites advertised them, what price they charged and what claims they made in relation to the add-ons. RESULTS: Eighty-seven eligible clinics were identified, with 72 unique websites; 37 (43%) clinics were part of one of nine groups of IVF clinics, of sizes ranging from two to eight clinics in the UK. Time-lapse imaging (TLI) was the most frequently advertised of the three add-ons (67% of clinics), followed by PGT-A (47%) and assisted hatching (28%). Very few websites stated that the effectiveness of the add-on was in doubt or unclear (four, two and one websites for TLI, PGT-A and assisted hatching, respectively), and none raised the possibility that an add-on might have negative effects. Claims of efficacy were often based on upstream outcomes (e.g. implantation, pregnancy). Some claims that PGT-A and TLI improved live birth rates were found. There was substantial variation in pricing. CONCLUSIONS: IVF clinic websites provide valuable information for patients seeking fertility treatment so it is key that the information is accurate and complete. There is a need for transparent information on interventions, including uncertainties and risks, to be made available by IVF clinics to support well-informed treatment decisions. The selected add-ons are widely advertised, and there is wide variation in pricing.

Drag reduction technology and devices for road vehicles - A comprehensive review.

This paper addresses the critical role of drag reduction technology in the evolution of road vehicle design amidst the ongoing climate crisis. With transportation accounting for a substantial portion of the EU's greenhouse gas emissions, the shift towards alternatively powered vehicles highlights the need for innovative solutions to extend range, reduce fuel consumption, and lower emissions. This review thoroughly outlines the literature on appendable drag reduction devices, encompassing both passive and active techniques, and their applicability across a variety of road vehicles, including light and heavy-duty transport. Methods applied to simplified bodies such as the Ahmed or other commonly studied generic bluff bodies are clearly distinguished from those applied to more detailed road vehicles, where results hold greater practical significance due to authentic geometry. A combination of both wind tunnel and CFD works are outlined with insights given into how advancements in both computing power and CFD will greatly enhance the future outputs of drag reduction research for road vehicles. Finally, an outlook is provided on the future of the technology and how increased consumer demand for configurable vehicles will encourage increased engagement between drag reduction device manufacturers and automakers to improve the device mounting process.

Delphi consensus on add-ons and social midia in Assisted Reproductive Technology.

This article reports the annals of a national consensus meeting on add-ons and social networks in Assisted Reproduction Techniques (ART). The panel of experts has developed a set of consensus points and this document is intended to be referenced as a national consensus to allow social networks and add-ons to be used in ART, following the standards of the Code of Medical Ethics and the Federal Council of Medicine, in a safe ethical and responsible way.

Perceptions of power-assist devices: interviews with manual wheelchair users.

PURPOSE: The study had three main objectives. (1) To investigate the perceived impact of power-assist devices (PADs) on manual wheelchair (MWC) user mobility. (2) To compare perceptions about different types of PADs. (3) To identify preferred features and design characteristics of PADs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with community-dwelling MWC users aged 31 years and older, with at least 2.5 years of experience using an MWC independently (n = 16). Data were thematically analysed using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Two main themes related to participants' perceptions about the effects of PAD use were identified: (1) "Expanding my world", which illustrated the perceived benefits of using PADs (e.g., gaining a sense of autonomy and access to new environments, maintaining physical health) and (2) "Falling short", which described challenges with PADs (e.g., safety, reliability and portability issues). Participants also identified strengths and limitations of different types of PADs that were mainly related to specific user-device and device-environment interactions as well as various functional characteristics. Moreover, participants outlined their priorities for future PAD design, including improving controllability, customizability and affordability of these devices. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' perceptions about PADs varied across different types of devices and in different contexts. However, PADs were generally perceived as enhancing the capabilities of MWCs. Our findings provide insight into the factors that can be considered when selecting a PAD and can inform the development of future PADs that are better equipped to overcome challenges that MWC users frequently encounter.Implications for RehabilitationPower-assist devices (PADs) for manual wheelchairs (MWCs) have the potential to improve the mobility, community participation and well-being of users.Some of the existing PADs have safety and reliability issues that affect their performance and limit their use by MWC users.The three types of PADs (front-mounted attachments, rear-mounted attachments, powered wheels) offer different types of assistance that can benefit users with various capabilities.

Accounting for complexity in healthcare innovation debates: Professional views on the use of new IVF treatments.

Social scientists have long been interested in the forces and values driving healthcare innovation. The simultaneous rise of 20th century healthcare reforms, increased importance of evidence and upsurge in lay health activism have shaped modern medicine. On this backdrop, fertility care emerged in the 1970s. Recent developments reveal a contentious relationship between new fertility treatments and clinical evidence, with emerging technologies being used without conclusive evidence of effectiveness despite being sold to patients. Initial critiques of this phenomenon emphasise commercial interests as the culprit, suggesting that the problematic use of unproven treatments is mainly driven by the private sector. Here, we challenge this over-simplified view of IVF care. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of key documents and 43 in-depth professional interviews, this article identifies three main stakeholder approaches to new treatment adoption. We argue that viewpoints are anchored within three critical overarching 'modes of coordination' or core values in modern healthcare: efficiency, effectiveness and patient-centeredness. This analysis encourages a more contextualised overview of fertility care than previous literatures have afforded. The IVF case shows that an emphasis on private versus public clinic practices obscure similarities between the two along with the values motivating healthcare professionals' approaches to new treatments.

How do IVF patients interpret claims about fertility treatments? A randomised survey experiment.

Trials evaluating the efficacy of IVF and various treatment options often focus on upstream outcome measures, improvements which may not translate into clinical outcome improvements. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed globally among IVF patients. Respondents were randomised to view one of 16 statements about a hypothetical IVF treatment option called 'FertiSure', stated to improve one of four upstream outcomes. Statements varied in whether they contained information stating that FertiSure was not proven to improve live-birth rates and about potential risks. Many patients inferred that improvements in upstream outcomes would result in improvements in the probability of live-birth. Nearly 80% of respondents were willing to use FertiSure. Respondents told that FertiSure was not proven to improve live-birth rates and were less willing to use FertiSure. More respondents agreed that FertiSure may pose a risk to patients when they were told this was the case. However, this did not affect their willingness to use FertiSure. Interestingly, 34% of respondents believed FertiSure would not improve the probability of live-birth but were still willing to use it. These results have implications for IVF clinic websites and information about treatment options which may not routinely contain statements about the limited evidence-base and possible risks.

The utility of all-freeze IVF cycles depends on the composition of study populations.

BACKGROUND: Because often introduced without proper validation studies, so-called "add-ons" to IVF have adversely affected in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes worldwide. All-freeze cycles (embryo banking, EB) with subsequently deferred thaw cycles are such an "add-on" and, because of greatly diverging reported outcomes, have become increasingly controversial. Based on "modeling" with selected patient populations, we in this study investigated whether reported outcome discrepancies may be the consequence of biased patient selection. RESULTS: In four distinct retrospective case control studies, we modeled in four cohort pairings how cryopreservation with subsequent thaw cycles affects outcomes differently in good-, average- and poor-prognosis patients: (i) 127 fresh vs. 193 frozen donor-recipient cycles to model best-prognosis patients; (ii) 741 autologous fresh non-donor IVF cycles vs. 217 autologous frozen non-donor IVF cycles to model average prognosis patients; (iii) 143 favorably selected autologous non-donor IVF cycles vs. the same 217 frozen autologous cycles non-donor to monitor good- vs. average-prognosis patients; and (iv) 598 average and poor-prognosis autologous non-donor cycles vs. the same 217 frozen autologous non-donor cycles to model poor vs. average prognosis patients. In best-prognosis patients, EB marginally improved IVF outcomes. In unselected patients, EB had no effects. In poor-prognosis patients, EB adversely affected IVF outcomes. Unexpectedly, the study also discovered independent-of-age-associated chromosomal abnormalities, a previously unreported effect of recipient age on miscarriage risk in donor-egg recipients. CONCLUSIONS: In poor-prognosis patients, EB cycles should be considered contraindicated. In intermediate-prognosis patients EB does not appear to change outcomes, not warranting additional cost and time delays. Therefore, only good-prognosis patients are candidates for EB, though they will experience only marginal benefits that may not be cost-effective.

The ATTAC guiding principles to openly and collaboratively share wildlife ecotoxicology data.

The inability to quantitatively integrate scattered data regarding potential threats posed by the increasing total amount and diversity of chemical substances in our environment limits our ability to understand whether existing regulations and management actions sufficiently protect wildlife. Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses are great scientific tools to build upon the current push for accessibility under the Open Science and FAIR movements. Despite the potential of such integrative analyses, the emergence of innovative findings in wildlife ecology and ecotoxicology is still too rare relative to the potential that is hidden within the entirety of the available scattered data. To promote the reuse of wildlife ecotoxicology data, we propose the ATTAC workflow which comprises five key steps (Access, Transparency, Transferability, Add-ons, and Conservation sensitivity) along the chain of collecting, homogenizing, and integrating data for subsequent meta-analyses. The ATTAC workflow brings together guidelines supporting both the data prime movers and re-users. As such, the ATTAC workflow could promote an open and collaborative wildlife ecotoxicology able to reach a major objective in this applied field, namely, providing strong scientific support for regulations and management actions to protect and preserve wildlife species.