The effect of hyaluronic acid in embryo transfer media in donor oocyte cycles and autologous oocyte cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the addition of hyaluronic acid (HA) to embryo transfer medium improve pregnancy outcomes in both autologous and oocyte donation IVF cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: The best available evidence indicates that the addition of HA to embryo transfer medium is clinically beneficial in cycles with autologous oocytes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: There is a known clinical benefit of HA addition to embryo transfer media but it is not known if HA affects donor and autologous oocyte cycles differently. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL via Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO electronic databases (until 8 January 2020) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of HA in embryo transfer medium on pregnancy outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: RCTs with separate donor and autologous oocyte data that compared embryo transfer medium with functional HA concentrations (0.5 mg/ml) to those containing no or low HA concentrations (0.125 mg/ml) were included. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Pooled risk ratios and 95% CIs were calculated. A summary of findings table was generated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. Judgements about evidence quality were justified and incorporated into the reported results for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Fifteen studies, totalling 4686 participants, were analysed. In autologous oocyte cycles, live birth increased from 32% to 39% when embryo transfer media contained functional HA concentrations (risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 1.11-1.34; nine studies, 3215 participants, I2 = 39%, moderate-quality evidence (number needed to treat (NNT) 14). HA-enriched media increased clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates by 5% and 8%, respectively (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04-1.18; 13 studies, 4014 participants, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence, NNT 21) and (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.27-1.76; 5 studies, 2400 participants, I2 = 21%, moderate-quality evidence, number needed to harm 13). Conversely, in donor oocyte cycles, HA addition showed little effect on live birth and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.12 95% CI 0.86-1.44; two studies, 317 participants, I2 = 50%, low-quality evidence) and (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97-1.28; three studies, 351 participants, I2 = 23%, low-quality evidence). There was insufficient available information on multiple pregnancy in donor oocyte cycles and on total adverse effects in both groups to draw conclusions. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There were limited studies with separate data on donor oocyte cycles and limited information on oocyte quality. Additionally, one-third of the included studies did not include the main outcome, live birth rate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: There is a moderate level of evidence to suggest that functional HA concentration in embryo transfer medium increases clinical pregnancy, live birth and multiple pregnancy rates in IVF cycles using autologous oocytes. This effect was not seen in donor oocyte cycles, indicating either intrinsic differences between donor and autologous oocytes or lack of statistical power. The combination of HA addition to transfer media in cycles using autologous oocytes and a single embryo transfer policy might yield the best combination, with higher clinical pregnancy and live birth rates without increasing the chance of multiple pregnancies. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No financial assistance was received. The authors have no competing interests. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Antioxidants for male subfertility.

BACKGROUND: The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, and two trial registers were searched on 15 February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included men with idiopathic infertility and normal semen parameters or fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 90 studies with a total population of 10,303 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Investigators compared and combined 20 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' certainty: the main limitation was that out of the 67 included studies in the meta-analysis only 20 studies reported clinical pregnancy, and of those 12 reported on live birth. The evidence is current up to February 2021. Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.91, P = 0.02, 12 RCTs, 1283 men, I2 = 44%, very low-certainty evidence). Results in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate suggest that if the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 16%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 17% and 27%. However, this result was based on only 246 live births from 1283 couples in 12 small or medium-sized studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75, 827 men, 8 RCTs, P = 0.27, I2 = 32%). Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47, P < 0.00001, 20 RCTs, 1706 men, I2 = 3%, low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. This suggests that, in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, if the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 15%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 20% and 30%. This result was based on 327 clinical pregnancies from 1706 couples in 20 small studies. Adverse events Miscarriage: only six studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. No evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate was found between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.83, P = 0.27, 6 RCTs, 664 men, I2 = 35%, very low-certainty evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile couples, with male factor infertility, with an expected miscarriage rate of 5%, the risk of miscarriage following the use of an antioxidant would be between 4% and 13%. Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal discomfort when compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.99, P = 0.002, 16 RCTs, 1355 men, I2 = 40%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal discomfort following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 7%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 46 out of 1355 men in 16 small or medium-sized studies, and the certainty of the evidence was rated low and heterogeneity was high. We were unable to draw conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, there is very low-certainty evidence from 12 small or medium-sized randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-certainty evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal discomfort, based on very low-certainty evidence. Subfertile couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials studying infertile men and reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

BACKGROUND: A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Antioxidants for male subfertility.

BACKGROUND: The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility. This review did not examine the use of antioxidants in normospermic men. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers were searched on 1 February 2018, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 61 studies with a total population of 6264 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Investigators compared and combined 18 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' quality: the main limitation was that out of the 44 included studies in the meta-analysis only 12 studies reported on live birth or clinical pregnancy. The evidence is current up to February 2018.Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.67, P = 0.005, 7 RCTs, 750 men, I2 = 40%, low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate, the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 12%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 14% and 26%. However, this result was based on only 124 live births from 750 couples in seven relatively small studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.16; participants = 540 men, 5 RCTs, P = 0.15, I2 = 0%).Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.91 to 4.63, P < 0.0001, 11 RCTs, 786 men, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. This suggests that if in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 7%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 12% and 26%. This result was based on 105 clinical pregnancies from 786 couples in 11 small studies.Adverse eventsMiscarriage: only three studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. There was no difference in miscarriage rate between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.60, P = 0.46, 3 RCTs, 247 men, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile men with an expected miscarriage rate of 2%, the chance following the use of an antioxidant would result in the risk of a miscarriage between 1% and 13%.Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal upsets when compared to placebo or no treatment (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.03, P = 0.010, 11 RCTs, 948 men, I2 = 50%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal upsets following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 9%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 35 out of 948 men in 10 small or medium-sized studies, and the quality of the evidence was rated very low and was high in heterogeneity.We were unable to draw any conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, there is low-quality evidence from seven small randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-quality evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may also increase. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal upsets but the evidence is of very low quality. Subfertilte couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

Inositol for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Subfertile women are highly motivated to try different adjunctive therapies to have a baby, and the widespread perception is that dietary supplements such as myo-inositol (MI) and D-chiro-insoitol (DCI) are associated with only benefit, and not with harm. Many fertility clinicians currently prescribe MI for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) as pre-treatment to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or for ovulation induction; however no high-quality evidence is available to support this practice. This review assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of inositol in subfertile women with a diagnosis of PCOS. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation of inositol for reproductive outcomes among subfertile women with PCOS who are trying to conceive. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (to July 2018): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and AMED. We also checked reference lists and searched the clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose, or combination of oral inositol versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, or with a fertility agent, or with another type of inositol, among subfertile women with PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live birth and adverse effects; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and ovulation rates. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model, and we calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by applying GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials involving 1472 subfertile women with PCOS who were receiving myo-inositol as pre-treatment to IVF (11 trials), or during ovulation induction (two trials). These studies compared MI versus placebo, no treatment/standard, melatonin, metformin, clomiphene citrate, or DCI. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' quality. The main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, inconsistency, and lack of reporting of clinically relevant outcomes such as live birth and adverse events.We are uncertain whether MI improves live birth rates when compared to standard treatment among women undergoing IVF (OR 2.42, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.83; P = 0.14; 2 RCTs; 84 women; I² = 0%). Very low-quality evidence suggests that for subfertile women with PCOS undergoing pre-treatment to IVF who have an expected live birth rate of 12%, the rate among women using MI would be between 9% and 51%.We are uncertain whether MI may be associated with a decrease in miscarriage rate when compared to standard treatment (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.86; P = 0.02; 4 RCTs; 535 women; I² = 66%; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS with an expected miscarriage rate of 9% who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, the rate among women using MI would be between 2% and 8%; however this meta-analysis is based primarily on one study, which reported an unusually high miscarriage rate in the control group, and this has resulted in very high heterogeneity. When we removed this trial from the sensitivity analysis, we no longer saw the effect, and we noted no conclusive differences between MI and standard treatment.Low-quality evidence suggests that MI may be associated with little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rates when compared with standard treatment (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.71; P = 0.89; 2 RCTs; 425 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 18%, the rate among women using inositol would be between 12% and 27%.We are uncertain whether MI may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate when compared to standard treatment (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.85; P = 0.22; 4 RCTs; 535 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 26%, the rate among women using MI would be between 24% and 40%. Ovulation rates were not reported for this comparison.Other comparisons included only one trial in each, so for the comparisons MI versus antioxidant, MI versus an insulin-sensitising agent, MI versus an ovulation induction agent, and MI versus another DCI, meta-analysis was not possible.No pooled evidence was available for women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction, as only single trials performed comparison of the insulin-sensitising agent and the ovulation induction agent. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In light of available evidence of very low quality, we are uncertain whether MI improves live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate in subfertile women with PCOS undergoing IVF pre-treatment taking MI compared to standard treatment. We are also uncertain whether MI decreases miscarriage rates or multiple pregnancy rates for these same women taking MI compared to standard treatment. No pooled evidence is available for use of MI versus placebo, another antioxidant, insulin-sensitising agents, ovulation induction agents, or another type of inositol for women with PCOS undergoing pre-treatment to IVF. No pooled evidence is available for use of MI in women undergoing ovulation induction.

Clinical trial registration in fertility trials - a case for improvement?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the prevalence and source of prospectively and retrospectively registered and unregistered trials in fertility treatments? SUMMARY ANSWER: Trial registration is low and does not appear to be changing over the 5 years studied. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Trial registration is associated with lower risk of bias than in unregistered trials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register was searched on 5 November 2015 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2010 to December 2014. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eligible trials included randomised women or men for fertility treatments, were published in full text, and written in English. Two reviewers independently assessed trial registration status for each trial, by searching the publication, trial registries, and by contacting the original authors. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: Of 693 eligible RCTS, only 44% were registered trials. Of 309 registered trials, 21.7% were prospectively registered, 15.8% were registered within 6 months of first patient enrolment and 62.5% were retrospectively registered trials. Prospective trial registration by country varied from 0% to 100%. The highest frequency of prospective trial registration amongst the top 10 publishing countries was 31% in the Netherlands. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Only English language trials were included in this review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Prospective trial registration is still low. Journals, funders and ethics committees could have a greater role to increase trial registration. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: University of Auckland. No competing interests.

Management of ovarian stimulation for IVF: narrative review of evidence provided for World Health Organization guidance.

In this paper, a review of evidence provided to the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline development, who prepare global guidance on the management of ovarian stimulation for women undergoing IVF, is presented. The purpose of ovarian stimulation is to facilitate retrieval of multiple oocytes during a single IVF cycle. Availability of multiple oocytes compensates for inefficiencies in subsequent stages of the cycle, which include oocyte maturation, IVF, embryo culture, embryo transfer, and implantation. Multiple embryos can be transferred in most women, and spare embryos can be frozen to allow for future chances of pregnancy without the need for repeated ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval. Our evidence synthesis team addressed 10 clinical questions on management of ovarian stimulation for IVF, prepared a narrative review of the evidence and drafted recommendations to be considered through WHO guideline development processes. Our main outcome measures were live birth, clinical pregnancy, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

BACKGROUND: A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2016) with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of appropriate studies and searched for ongoing trials in the clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the dichotomous outcomes of live birth, clinical pregnancy and adverse events. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by applying GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 50 trials involving 6510 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including combinations of antioxidants, N-acetyl-cysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, D-chiro-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, pentoxifylline and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant.Very low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may be associated with an increased live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.12, P > 0.001, 8 RCTs, 651 women, I2 = 47%). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 20%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 26% and 43%.Very low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.76, P < 0.001, 26 RCTs, 4271 women, I2 = 66%). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 22%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 27% and 33%. Heterogeneity was moderately high.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.08, P = 0.14, 18 RCTs, 2834 women, I2 = 23%, very low quality evidence). This suggests that, among subfertile women with an expected miscarriage rate of 7%, use of antioxidants would be expected to result in a miscarriage rate of between 4% and 7%. There was also insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.38, P = 0.98, 8 RCTs, 2163 women, I2 = 4%, very low quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 8%, use of antioxidants would be expected to result in a multiple pregnancy rate between 6% and 11%. Likewise, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10, P = 0.47, 3 RCTs, 343 women, I2 = 0%, very low quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected gastrointestinal disturbance rate of 2%, use of antioxidants would be expected to result in a rate between 1% and 11%. Overall adverse events were reported by 35 trials in the meta-analysis, but there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions.Only one trial reported on live birth, clinical pregnancy or adverse effects in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, and no conclusions could be drawn.Very low-quality evidence suggests that pentoxifylline may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.56, P = 0.009, 3 RCTs, 276 women, I2 = 0%). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 25%, the rate among women using pentoxifylline would be between 28% and 53%.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.90, P = 0.58, 3 RCTs, 276 women, I2 = 0%) or multiple pregnancy (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.09, one RCT, 112 women, very low quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected miscarriage rate of 4%, the rate among women using pentoxifylline would be between 2% and 15%. For multiple pregnancy, the data suggest that among subfertile women with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 9%, the rate among women using pentoxifylline would be between 2% and 23%.The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, there was very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may provide benefit for subfertile women, but insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about adverse events. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

No common denominator: a review of outcome measures in IVF RCTs.

STUDY QUESTION: Which outcome measures are reported in RCTs for IVF? SUMMARY ANSWER: Many combinations of numerator and denominator are in use, and are often employed in a manner that compromises the validity of the study. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The choice of numerator and denominator governs the meaning, relevance and statistical integrity of a study's results. RCTs only provide reliable evidence when outcomes are assessed in the cohort of randomised participants, rather than in the subgroup of patients who completed treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Review of outcome measures reported in 142 IVF RCTs published in 2013 or 2014. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register. English-language publications of RCTs reporting clinical or preclinical outcomes in peer-reviewed journals in the period 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2014 were eligible. Reported numerators and denominators were extracted. Where they were reported, we checked to see if live birth rates were calculated correctly using the entire randomised cohort or a later denominator. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Over 800 combinations of numerator and denominator were identified (613 in no more than one study). No single outcome measure appeared in the majority of trials. Only 22 (43%) studies reporting live birth presented a calculation including all randomised participants or only excluding protocol violators. A variety of definitions were used for key clinical numerators: for example, a consensus regarding what should constitute an ongoing pregnancy does not appear to exist at present. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Several of the included articles may have been secondary publications. Our categorisation scheme was essentially arbitrary, so the frequencies we present should be interpreted with this in mind. The analysis of live birth denominators was post hoc. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: There is massive diversity in numerator and denominator selection in IVF trials due to its multistage nature, and this causes methodological frailty in the evidence base. The twin spectres of outcome reporting bias and analysis of non-randomised comparisons do not appear to be widely recognised. Initiatives to standardise outcome reporting, such as requiring all effectiveness studies to report live birth or cumulative live birth, are welcome. However, there is a need to recognise that early outcomes of treatment, such as stimulation response or embryo quality, may be appropriate choices of primary outcome for early phase studies. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: J.W. is funded by a Doctoral Research Fellowship from the National Institute for Health Research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health. J.W. also declares that publishing research is beneficial to his career. J.W. and A.V. are statistical editors, and M.S. is Information Specialist, for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, although the views expressed here are not necessarily those of the group. D.R.B. is funded by the NHS as Scientific Director of a clinical IVF service. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.

Obesity and endometrial hyperplasia and cancer in premenopausal women: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on the association between obesity and endometrial hyperplasia or cancer in premenopausal women. DATA SOURCES: We searched the bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and CINAHL (inception to May 5, 2015), and checked reference lists of included studies and systematic reviews. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies of more than 50 women with endometrial pathology diagnosed during premenopause that reported on obesity as a risk factor were eligible. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Study identification and data extraction were independently performed by 2 authors. Where possible, data were pooled in a generic inverse variance forest plot. Heterogeneity was reported using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS: Nine case-control studies of moderate quality were included. Quantitative analysis of 5 studies showed a dose-response relationship of body mass index and increased risk of endometrial cancer. For studies of women with body mass index of ≥25, the pooled odds ratio was 3.85 (95% confidence interval 2.53-5.84); body mass index of ≥30 was 5.25 (4.00-6.90); and body mass index of ≥40 was 19.79 (11.18-35.03). CONCLUSION: Body mass index is a consistent and leading risk factor for endometrial complex hyperplasia or cancer in premenopausal women. Body mass index should be considered when deciding to assess the endometrium in symptomatic premenopausal women.

Intravenous in-line filters for preventing morbidity and mortality in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Venous access is an essential part of caring for the sick neonate. However, problems such as contamination of fluids with bacteria, endotoxins and particulates have been associated with intravenous infusion therapy. Intravenous in-line filters claim to be an effective strategy for the removal of bacteria, endotoxins and particulates associated with intravenous therapy in adults and are increasingly being recommended for use in neonates. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of intravenous in-line filters on morbidity and mortality in neonates. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE (from 1966 to May, 2015), EMBASE (from 1980 to May, 2015), CINAHL (from 1982 to May 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 5). We did not impose any language restrictions. Further searching included cross references, abstracts, conferences, symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal handsearching. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared the use of intravenous in-line filters with placebo or nothing in neonates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the procedures of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group throughout. We checked titles and abstracts identified from the search. We obtained the full text of all studies of possible relevance. We independently assessed the trials for their methodological quality and subsequent inclusion in the review. We contacted authors for further information as needed. Statistical analysis followed the procedures of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN RESULTS: There were four eligible studies that recruited a total of 704 neonates. This review of low to very low quality evidence found that the use of in-line filters compared with unfiltered fluids for intravenous infusion had no statistically significant difference in effectiveness on overall mortality (typical RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.47; typical RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.04; two studies, 530 infants), proven and suspect septicaemia (typical RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.27; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04; two studies, 530 infants), or other secondary outcomes (including local phlebitis and thrombus, necrotising enterocolitis, duration of cannula patency, length of stay in hospital, number of catheters inserted and financial costs). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of intravenous in-line filters to prevent morbidity and mortality in neonates.

Antioxidants for male subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Between 30% to 80% of male subfertility cases are considered to be due to the damaging effects of oxidative stress on sperm and 1 man in 20 will be affected by subfertility. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments and many men are already using these to improve their fertility. It is thought that oral supplementation with antioxidants may improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative stress. Pentoxifylline, a drug that acts like an antioxidant, was also included in this review.   OBJECTIVES: This Cochrane review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation with antioxidants for subfertile male partners in couples seeking fertility assistance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED databases (from inception until January 2014); trial registers; sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. An updated search was run in August 2014 when potentially eligible studies were placed in 'Studies awaiting assessment'. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type or dose of antioxidant supplement (single or combined) taken by the subfertile male partner of a couple seeking fertility assistance with a placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates, adverse events, sperm DNA fragmentation, sperm motility and concentration. Data were combined, where appropriate, to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE methods.   MAIN RESULTS: This updated review included 48 RCTs that compared single and combined antioxidants with placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant in a population of 4179 subfertile men. The duration of the trials ranged from 3 to 26 weeks with follow up ranging from 3 weeks to 2 years. The men were aged from 20 to 52 years. Most of the men enrolled in these trials had low total sperm motility and sperm concentration. One study enrolled men after varicocelectomy, one enrolled men with a varicocoele, and one recruited men with chronic prostatitis. Three trials enrolled men who, as a couple, were undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and one trial enrolled men who were part of a couple undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI). Funding sources were stated by 15 trials. Four of these trials stated that funding was from a commercial source and the remaining 11 obtained funding through non-commercial avenues or university grants. Thirty-three trials did not report any funding sources.A limitation of this review was that in a sense we had included two different groups of trials, those that reported on the use of antioxidants and the effect on live birth and clinical pregnancy, and a second group that reported on sperm parameters as their primary outcome and had no intention of reporting the primary outcomes of this review. We included 25 trials reporting on sperm parameters and only three of these reported on live birth or clinical pregnancy. Other limitations included poor reporting of study methods, imprecision, the small number of trials providing usable data, the small sample size of many of the included studies and the lack of adverse events reporting. The evidence was graded as 'very low' to 'low'. The data were current to 31 January 2014.Live birth: antioxidants may have increased live birth rates (OR 4.21, 95% CI 2.08 to 8.51, P< 0.0001, 4 RCTs, 277 men, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 5%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 10% and 31%. However, this result was based on only 44 live births from a total of 277 couples in four small studies.Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may have increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.92 to 6.11, P < 0.0001, 7 RCTs, 522 men, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 6%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated at between 11% and 28%. However, there were only seven small studies in this analysis and the quality of the evidence was rated as low.Miscarriage: only three trials reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. There was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in miscarriage rates between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment groups (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.60, P = 0.46, 3 RCTs, 247 men, I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile men with an expected miscarriage rate of 2%, use of an antioxidant would result in the risk of a miscarriage lying between 1% and 13%.Gastrointestinal upsets: there was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in gastrointestinal upsets when antioxidants were compared to placebo or no treatment as the event rate was very low (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.50, P = 0.46, 6 RCTs, 429 men, I(2) = 0%).We were unable to draw any conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as not enough trials compared the same interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence from only four small randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low quality evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage but this is uncertain as the evidence is of very low quality. Data were lacking on other adverse effects. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials are needed to clarify these results.

Twenty years of Cochrane reviews in menstrual disorders and subfertility.

The past three decades have seen considerable change in the understanding of clinical research methods. There has been an acceptance that RCTs are the best way of establishing treatment effectiveness and a recognition that, while single studies are useful, pooling knowledge from a complete body of work is likely to provide the best evidence. Advances in methodology have been mirrored by the many advances in the field of reproductive medicine, such as assisted reproduction, assessment of male fertility, ovulation induction and laparoscopic surgery. Together, they have led to welcome improvements in the outcomes of fertility treatments. In particular, systematic reviews have become important tools enabling clinicians and patients to make health-care decisions based on evidence from all the available high-quality studies. The move towards identifying and aggregating the highest quality evidence has been led by the Cochrane Collaboration, which this year celebrates 20 years of preparing and publishing systematic reviews. This paper outlines the achievements, progress and challenges of this enterprise to date, with a particular focus on systematic reviews of reproductive medicine.

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

BACKGROUND: A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This difficulty with conception may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. The reported prevalence of subfertility has increased significantly over the past twenty years. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may be a result of female problems, including ovulatory disorders, poor egg quality, fallopian tube damage and endometriosis. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from inception to April 2013) with no language restrictions applied: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS and OpenSIGLE. We also searched conference abstracts and citation lists in the ISI Web of Knowledge. Ongoing trials were searched in the Trials Registers. Reference lists were checked, and a search on Google was performed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. Trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that exclusively included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently screened 2127 titles and abstracts, and 67 of these potentially eligible trials were appraised for inclusion and quality through review of full texts and contact with authors. Three review authors were involved in data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. Review authors also collected data on adverse events as reported from the trials. Studies were pooled using fixed-effect models; however, if high heterogeneity was found, a random-effects model was used. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the dichotomous outcomes of live birth, clinical pregnancy and adverse events. Analyses were stratified by type of antioxidant, by indications for subfertility and by those women also undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection techniques (ICSIs). The overall quality of the evidence was assessed by applying GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 28 trials involving 3548 women were included in this review. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including combinations of antioxidants, pentoxifylline, N-acetyl-cysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, vitamin E, myo-inositol, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids with placebo, with no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant.Antioxidants were not associated with an increased live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.26, P = 0.82, 2 RCTs, 97 women, I(2) = 75%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 37%, the rate among women taking antioxidants would be between 10% and 83%.Antioxidants were not associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.85, P = 0.14, 13 RCTs, 2441 women, I(2)= 55%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 23%, the rate among women taking antioxidants would be between 22% and 36%.Only one trial reported on live birth in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, and two trials reported on clinical pregnancy in this comparison. Only subtotals were used in this analysis, and meta-analysis was not possible as each trial used a different antioxidant.Pentoxifylline was associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.44, P = 0.009, 3 RCTs, 276 women, I(2) = 0%).Adverse events were reported by 14 trials in the meta-analysis and included miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy and gastrointestinal effects. No evidence revealed a difference in adverse effects between antioxidant groups and control groups, but these data were limited.The overall quality of evidence was 'very low' to 'low' because of poor reporting of outcomes, the number of small studies included, high risk of bias within studies and heterogeneity in the primary analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the evidence in the 'antioxidant versus placebo/no treatment' and in the 'antioxidant versus antioxidant' comparisons was assessed to be 'very low'. Antioxidants were not associated with an increased live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. There was some evidence of an association of pentoxifylline with an increased clinical pregnancy rate; however, there were only three trials included in this comparison. Future trials may change this result. Variation in the types of antioxidants given meant that we could not assess whether one antioxidant was better than another. There did not appear to be any association of antioxidants with adverse effects for women, but data for these outcomes were limited.

Is our public research money well spent? Publication of research outputs from Health Research Council of New Zealand-funded studies: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting of results from the projects and programmes funded by the Health Research Council (HRC) New Zealand. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Research projects and programmes funded by the HRC New Zealand from 2006 to 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Publicly available data provided by the HRC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and proportion with evidence of publication and dissemination of a research output from HRC grants and the time taken to disseminate the results. RESULTS: Of the 374 HRC grants from 2006 to 2014, there was no evidence of publication or reporting of any research output for 48 studies (13%). Of the 326 (87%) grants with research outputs, there was a mean dissemination time of 4.73 years (SD 2.37). The total funding provided by the HRC was NZ$471 663 336, while the 48 grants with no evidence of dissemination represented NZ$47 095 727 (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Thirteen per cent of the HRC projects and programmes from 2006 to 2014 have not contributed to the healthcare evidence as their results remain unknown.

Publication bias in trials registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: Is it a problem? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Timely publication of clinical trials is critical to ensure the dissemination and implementation of high-quality healthcare evidence. This study investigates the publication rate and time to publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of RCTs registered with the ANZCTR in 2007, 2009, and 2011. Multiple bibliographic databases were searched until October 2021 to identify trial publications. We then calculated publication rates, proportions, and the time to publish calculated from the date of first participation enrolment to publication date. RESULTS: Of 1,970 trial registrations, 541 (27%) remained unpublished 10 to 14 years later, and the proportion of trials published decreased by 7% from 2007 to 2011. The average time to publish was 4.63 years. The prospective trial registration rate for 2007, 2009 and 2011 was 48% (952 trials) and over this time there was an increase of 19% (280 prospective trials). Trials funded by non-Industry organizations were more likely to be published (74%, 1204/1625 trials) than the industry-funded trials (61%, 224/345 trials). Larger trials with at least 1000 participants were published at a rate of 88% (85/97 trials) and on average took 5.4 years to be published. Smaller trials with less than 100 participants were published at a lower rate with 67% (687/1024 trials) published and these trials took 4.31 years on average to publish. CONCLUSIONS: Just over a quarter of all trials on the ANZCTR for 2007, 2009, and 2011 remain unpublished over a decade later. The average time to publication of nearly five years may reflect the larger trials which will have taken longer to recruit participants. Over half of study sample trials were retrospectively registered, but prospective registration improved over time, highlighting the role of mandating trial registration.

New research questions identified for Cochrane reviews: a cross-sectional study of a specialized register: part two: fertility.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this project was to identify gaps and research waste in the dissemination of fertility evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study of The Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility (CGF) Group's specialized register of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included trials on fertility problems published in 2010 and 2011. These trials were matched, by the condition and treatment, to existing CSRs. Unmatched trials were analyzed to prioritize new review titles. RESULTS: We exported 564 trials from the CGF specialized register and found that 115 (23%) of these could be included in an existing CSR if these were updated while 72 trials (14%) were not matched to any review topic, and from these, eight new Cochrane review titles were developed. The topic with the largest number of associated 'unused' trials was 'Traditional Chinese medicine for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques'. CONCLUSION: This project found that 14% of fertility trials were 'unused' and from these we identified new review topics and identified those reviews that need to be updated, thereby identifying the gaps in evidence for people with infertility.

New research questions identified for Cochrane reviews: a cross-sectional study of a specialized register: part one: gynecology.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this project was to identify gaps and research waste in the dissemination of gynecology evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study of the Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility (CGF) Group's specialized register of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included trials on benign gynecological conditions, published in 2010 and 2011. These trials were matched, by the condition and treatment, to existing Cochrane reviews. Unmatched trials were analysed to prioritize new review titles. RESULTS: After exporting 740 trials from the CGF specialized register, we found that 192 (26%) could be included in an existing CSR if it was updated, whereas 230 trials (32%) were not matched to any review title, and from these, we developed 21 new review titles. The topic with the largest number of associated 'unused' trials was 'Plant and herbal extracts for symptoms of menopause'. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a third of the benign gynecology trials published in 2010 and 2011 had no associated CSR. After identifying new topics from unmatched trials, we developed new CSR titles. This study identified the gaps in the evidence for women with gynecological problems.

Reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta-analyses-A scoping review.

Publishing systematic review protocols is a fundamental part of systematic reviews to ensure transparency and reproducibility. In this scoping review, we aimed to evaluate reporting of Cochrane systematic review protocols with network meta-analyses (NMA). We searched all Cochrane NMA protocols published in 2018 and 2019, and assessed the characteristics and reporting of methodologies relevant to NMA. We reported frequencies for each reporting item. Forty-five protocols were assessed, including two for overviews and 43 for intervention reviews. Thirty-three (73%) were labelled as NMA protocols in the title. Forty-two (95%) justified the need of an NMA and 40 (89%) used appropriate search strategies to identify potential eligible studies. About half (24, 53%) considered the transitivity assumption when reporting inclusion criteria and 35 (78%) specified potential effect modifiers. Forty-three (96%) reported statistical software for NMA, 25 (56%) reported NMA model choice, 32 (71%) reported framework choice and 32 (71%) reported assumption about heterogeneity variances. Protocols varied in whether they reported methods for relative ranking (35, 78%), statistical inconsistency (40, 89%), reporting bias (44, 98%) and sources of heterogeneity (39, 87%). In conclusion, Cochrane NMA protocols reported multiple NMA-specific items well, but could be further improved, especially regarding transitivity assumptions. Our recommendations for NMA protocol reporting based on this scoping review could assist authors, reviewers, and editors to improve NMA protocols.