Progestogens for prevention of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as part of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle.

BACKGROUND: Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of administration is invasive and has some adverse effects. Oral progestogens could be cheaper and effective to prevent a premature LH surge. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using progestogens to avoid spontaneous ovulation in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in Dec 2021. We contacted study authors and experts to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included progestogens for ovulation inhibition in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including the risk of bias (RoB) assessment. The primary review outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and oocyte pick-up cancellation rate (OPCR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), cumulative pregnancy, miscarriage rate (MR), multiple pregnancies, LH surge, total and MII oocytes, days of stimulation, dose of gonadotropins, and moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. The primary analyses were restricted to studies at overall low and some concerns RoB, and sensitivity analysis included all studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs (2643 subfertile women undergoing ART, 47 women used oocyte freezing for fertility preservation and 534 oocyte donors). Progestogens versus GnRH antagonists We are very uncertain of the effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 10 mg compared with cetrorelix on the LBR in poor responders (odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 2.13, one RCT, N = 340, very-low-certainty evidence), suggesting that if the chance of live birth following GnRH antagonists is assumed to be 18%, the chance following MPA would be 14% to 32%. There may be little or no difference in OPCR between progestogens and GnRH antagonists, but due to wide Cs (CIs), we are uncertain (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.42 to 2.01, 3 RCTs, N = 648, I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 4% with progestogens to 2% to 8%. Given the imprecision found, no conclusions can be retrieved on CPR and MR. Low-quality evidence suggested that using micronised progesterone in normo-responders may increase by 2 to 6 the MII oocytes in comparison to GnRH antagonists. There may be little or no differences in gonadotropin doses. Progestogens versus GnRH agonists Results were uncertain for all outcomes comparing progestogens with GnRH agonists. One progestogen versus another progestogen The analyses comparing one progestogen versus another progestogen for LBR did not meet our criteria for primary analyses. The OPCR was probably lower in the MPA 10 mg in comparison to MPA 4 mg (OR 2.27, 95%CI 0.90 to 5.74, one RCT, N = 300, moderate-certainty evidence), and MPA 4 mg may be lower than micronised progesterone 100 mg, but due to wide CI, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.43 to 1.53, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 5% with MPA 4 mg to 5% to22%, and from 17% with micronised progesterone 100 mg to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to MPA, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 10 mg (OR 1.49, 95%CI 0.80 to 2.80, one RCT, N = 520, moderate-certainty evidence), and it may be lower in dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 4 mg but due to wide confidence interval, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.61 to 2.34, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 7% with dydrogesterone 20 to 6-17%, and in MPA 4 mg from 12% to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to micronised progesterone 100 mg, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group (OR 1.54, 95%CI 0.94 to 2.52, two RCTs, N=550, I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), changing OPCR from 11% with dydrogesterone to 10% to 24%. We are very uncertain of the effect in normo-responders of micronised progesterone 100 mg compared with micronised progesterone 200 mg on the OPCR (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.09 to 1.37, one RCT, N = 150, very-low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in CPR and MR between MPA 10 mg and dydrogesterone 20 mg. There may be little or no differences in MII oocytes and gonadotropins doses. No cases of moderate/severe OHSS were reported in most of the groups in any of the comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Little or no differences in LBR may exist when comparing MPA 4 mg with GnRH agonists in normo-responders. OPCR may be slightly increased in the MPA 4 mg group, but MPA 4 mg reduces the doses of gonadotropins in comparison to GnRH agonists. Little or no differences in OPCR may exist between progestogens and GnRH antagonists in normo-responders and donors. However, micronised progesterone could improve by 2 to 6 MII oocytes. When comparing one progestogen to another, dydrogesterone suggested slightly lower OPCR than MPA and micronised progesterone, and MPA suggested slightly lower OPCR than the micronised progesterone 100 mg. Finally, MPA 10 mg suggests a lower OPCR than MPA 4 mg. There is uncertainty regarding the rest of the outcomes due to imprecision and no solid conclusions can be drawn.

Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology.

BACKGROUND: Advances in embryo culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) practice from cleavage-stage embryo transfer to blastocyst-stage embryo transfer. The rationale for blastocyst-stage transfer is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos, thus resulting in better live birth rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether blastocyst-stage (day 5 to 6) embryo transfer improves the live birth rate (LBR) per fresh transfer, and other associated outcomes, compared with cleavage-stage (day 2 to 3) embryo transfer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, from inception to October 2021. We also searched registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of studies retrieved. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of IVF with blastocyst-stage embryo transfer versus IVF with cleavage-stage embryo transfer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were LBR per fresh transfer and cumulative clinical pregnancy rates (cCPR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), multiple pregnancy, high-order multiple pregnancy, miscarriage (all following first embryo transfer), failure to transfer embryos, and whether supernumerary embryos were frozen for transfer at a later date (frozen-thawed embryo transfer). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 RCTs (5821 couples or women). The live birth rate following fresh transfer was higher in the blastocyst-stage transfer group (odds ratio (OR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.51; I2 = 53%; 15 studies, 2219 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 31% of women achieve live birth after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 32% and 41% would do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer improves the cCPR. A post hoc analysis showed that vitrification could increase the cCPR. This is an interesting finding that warrants further investigation when more studies using vitrification are published. The CPR was also higher in the blastocyst-stage transfer group, following fresh transfer (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.39; I2 = 51%; 32 studies, 5821 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 39% of women achieve a clinical pregnancy after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 42% and 47% will probably do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer increases multiple pregnancy (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.33; I2 = 30%; 19 studies, 3019 women; low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rates (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.38; I2 = 24%; 22 studies, 4208 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 9% of women have a multiple pregnancy after fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 8% and 12% would do so after fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. However, a sensitivity analysis restricted only to studies with low or 'some concerns' for risk of bias, in the subgroup of equal number of embryos transferred, showed that blastocyst transfer probably increases the multiple pregnancy rate. Embryo freezing rates (when there are frozen supernumerary embryos for transfer at a later date) were lower in the blastocyst-stage transfer group (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57; I2 = 84%; 14 studies, 2292 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 60% of women have embryos frozen after cleavage-stage transfer, between 37% and 46% would do so after blastocyst-stage transfer. Failure to transfer any embryos was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.55; I2 = 36%; 17 studies, 2577 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 1% of women have no embryos transferred in planned fresh cleavage-stage transfer, between 2% and 4% probably have no embryos transferred in planned fresh blastocyst-stage transfer. The evidence was of low quality for most outcomes. The main limitations were serious imprecision and serious risk of bias, associated with failure to describe acceptable methods of randomisation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence for live birth and moderate-quality evidence for clinical pregnancy that fresh blastocyst-stage transfer is associated with higher rates of both than fresh cleavage-stage transfer. We are uncertain whether blastocyst-stage transfer improves the cCPR derived from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles following a single oocyte retrieval. Although there is a benefit favouring blastocyst-stage transfer in fresh cycles, more evidence is needed to know whether the stage of transfer impacts on cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates. Future RCTs should report rates of live birth, cumulative live birth, and miscarriage. They should also evaluate women with a poor prognosis to enable those undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and service providers to make well-informed decisions on the best treatment option available.

Commentary on two recently published formal guidelines on management of "mosaic" embryos after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A).

Two professional societies recently published opinions on the clinical management of "mosaic" results from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in human blastocyst-stage embryos in associations with in vitro fertilization (IVF). We here point out three principal shortcomings: (i) Though a most recent societal opinion states that it should not be understood as an endorsement of the use of PGT-A, any discussion of how PGT-A should be clinically interpreted for all practical purposes does offer such an endorsement. (ii) The same guideline derived much of its opinion from a preceding guidance in favor of utilization of PGT-A that did not follow even minimal professional requirements for establishment of practice guidelines. (iii) Published guidelines on so-called "mosaic" embryos from both societies contradict basic biological characteristics of human preimplantation-stage embryos. They, furthermore, are clinically unvalidated and interpret results of a test, increasingly seen as harmful to IVF outcomes for many infertile women. Qualified professional organizations, therefore, should finally offer transparent guidelines about the utilization of PGT-A in association with IVF in general.

Endometrial preparation for women undergoing embryo transfer with frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes.

BACKGROUND: A frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle is when one or more embryos (frozen during a previous treatment cycle) are thawed and transferred to the uterus. Some women undergo fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycles with embryos derived from donated oocytes. In both situations, the endometrium is primed with oestrogen and progestogen in different doses and routes of administration. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the most effective endometrial preparation for women undergoing transfer with frozen embryos or embryos from donor oocytes with regard to the subsequent live birth rate (LBR). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trials registers and abstracts of reproductive societies' meetings were searched in June 2020 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We analysed all available interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or between each other. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical and multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, cycle cancellation, endometrial thickness and adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs (5426 women) were included. Evidence was moderate to very low-quality: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, and serious imprecision. Stimulated versus programmed cycle We are uncertain whether a letrozole-stimulated cycle compared to a programmed cycle, for endometrial preparation, improves LBR (odds ratio (OR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 3.26; 100 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Stimulating with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), letrozole or clomiphene citrate may improve clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.38; 656 participants; five studies; I2 = 11%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if they reduce miscarriage rate (MR) (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.71; 355 participants; three studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Endometrial thickness (ET) may be reduced with clomiphene citrate (mean difference(MD) -1.04, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.49; 92 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). Other outcomes were not reported. Natural versus programmed cycle We are uncertain of the effect from a natural versus programmed cycle for LBR (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28; 1285 participants; four studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and CPR (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01; 1249 participants; five studies; I2 = 60%; very low-quality evidence), while a natural cycle probably reduces the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 734 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and ET. No study reported other outcomes. Transdermal versus oral oestrogens From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect transdermal compared to oral oestrogens has on CPR (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25; 504 participants; three studies; I2 = 58%) or MR (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.09; 414 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%). Other outcomes were not reported. Day of starting administration of progestogen When doing a fresh ET using donated oocytes in a synchronised cycle starting progestogen on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) or the day after OPU, in comparison with recipients that start progestogen the day prior to OPU, probably increases the CPR (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.08; 282 participants; one study, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) or MR. It probably reduces the CCR (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.74; 282 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). No study reported other outcomes. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus control A cycle with GnRH agonist compared to without may improve LBR (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.78; 234 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect on CPR (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; 1289 participants; eight studies; I2 = 20%), MR (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.00; 828 participants; four studies; I2 = 0%), CCR (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 530 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%) and ET (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.16; 697 participants; four studies; I2 = 4%). No study reported other outcomes. Among different GnRH agonists From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain if cycles among different GnRH agonists improves CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes. GnRH agonists versus GnRH antagonists GnRH antagonists compared to agonists probably improves CPR (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; 473 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and MPR. No study reported other outcomes. Aspirin versus control From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with aspirin versus without improves LBR, CPR, or ET. Steroids versus control From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with steroids compared to without improves LBR, CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence on the use of any particular intervention for endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers. In frozen embryo transfers, low-quality evidence showed that clinical pregnancy rates may be improved in a stimulated cycle compared to a programmed one, and we are uncertain of the effect when comparing a programmed cycle to a natural cycle. Cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced in a natural cycle. Although administering a GnRH agonist, compared to without, may improve live birth rates, clinical pregnancy rates will probably be improved in a GnRH antagonist cycle over an agonist cycle. In fresh synchronised oocyte donor cycles, the clinical pregnancy rate is probably improved and cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced when starting progestogen the day of or day after donor oocyte retrieval. Adequately powered studies are needed to evaluate each treatment more accurately.

How effective are the non-conventional ovarian stimulation protocols in ART? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of starting the ovarian stimulation on the early follicular phase ("Conventional") with the newer range of non-conventional approaches starting in the luteal phase ("Luteal"), random-start, and studies implementing them in DuoStim ("Conventional"+"Luteal"). METHODS: Systematic review. We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase, on March 2020. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials that compared "Luteal," random-start ovarian stimulation or DuoStim with "Conventional"; we analyzed them by subgroups: oocyte freezing and patients undergoing ART treatments, both, in the general infertile population and among poor responders. RESULTS: The following results come from a sensitivity analysis that included only the low/moderate risk of bias studies. When comparing "Luteal" to "Conventional," clinically relevant differences in MII oocytes were ruled out in all subgroups. We found that "Luteal" probably increases the COH length both, in the general infertile population (OR 2.00 days, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.19, moderate-quality evidence) and in oocyte freezing cycles (MD 0.85 days, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.18, moderate-quality evidence). When analyzing DuoStim among poor responders, we found that it appears to generate a higher number of MII oocytes in comparison with a single "Conventional" (MD 3.35, 95%CI 2.54-4.15, moderate-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Overall, this systematic review of the available data demonstrates that in poor responders, general infertile population and oocyte freezing for cancer stimulation in the late follicular and luteal phases can be utilized in non-conventional approaches such as random-start and DuoStim cycles, offering similar outcomes to the conventional cycles but potentially with increased flexibility, within a reduced time frame. However, more well-designed trials are required to establish certainty.

Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?

PURPOSE: To evaluate if the authors of published systematic reviews (SRs) reported the level of quality of evidence (QoE) in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals and to analyze if they used an appropriate wording to describe it. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. We searched in PubMed for SRs published in 2017 in the five infertility journals with the highest impact factor. We analyzed the proportion of SRs published in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals that reported the SRs' QoE, and the proportion of those SRs in which authors used consistent wording to describe QoE and magnitude of effect. RESULTS: The QoE was reported in only 21.4% of the 42 included SRs and in less than 10% of the abstracts. Although we did not find important differences in the report of QoE of those that showed statistically significant differences or not, p value was associated with the wording chosen by the authors. We found inconsistent reporting of the size the effect estimate in 54.8% (23/42) and in the level of QoE in 92.9% (39/42). Whereas the effect size was more consistently expressed in studies with statistically significant findings, QoE was better expressed in those cases in which the p value was over 0.05. CONCLUSION: We found that in 2017, less than 25% of the authors reported the overall QoE when publishing SRs. Authors focused more on statistical significance as a binary concept than on methodological limitations like study design, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias. Authors should make efforts to report the QoE and interpret results accordingly.

Advanced sperm selection techniques for assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) including in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), combine gametes to enhance the probability of fertilisation and pregnancy. Advanced sperm selection techniques are increasingly employed in ART, most commonly in cycles utilising ICSI. Advanced sperm selection techniques are proposed to improve the chance that structurally intact and mature sperm with high DNA integrity are selected for fertilisation. Strategies include selection according to surface charge; sperm apoptosis; sperm birefringence; ability to bind to hyaluronic acid; and sperm morphology under ultra-high magnification. These techniques are intended to improve ART outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of advanced sperm selection techniques on ART outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases (Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform); conference abstracts (Web of Knowledge); and grey literature (OpenGrey) for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We handsearched the reference lists of included studies and similar reviews. The search was conducted in June 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing advanced sperm selection techniques versus standard IVF, ICSI, or another technique. We excluded studies of intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI), as they are subject to a separate Cochrane Review. Primary outcomes measured were live birth and miscarriage per woman randomly assigned. Secondary outcome measures included clinical pregnancy per woman randomly assigned. Secondary adverse events measured included miscarriage per clinical pregnancy and foetal abnormality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by consultation with a third review author. We consulted study investigators to resolve queries. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We combined studies using a fixed-effect model. We evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (4147 women). The quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were imprecision, performance bias, and attrition bias.Hyaluronic acid selected sperm-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (HA-ICSI) compared to ICSITwo RCTs compared the effects of HA-ICSI versus ICSI on live birth. The quality of the evidence was low. There may be little or no difference between groups: 25% chance of live birth with ICSI versus 24.5% to 31% with HA-ICSI (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.23, 2903 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). Three RCTs reported on miscarriage. HA-ICSI may decrease miscarriage per woman randomly assigned: 7% chance of miscarriage with ICSI versus 3% to 6% chance with HA-ICSI (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 3005 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) and per clinical pregnancy: 20% chance of miscarriage with ICSI compared to 9% to 16% chance with HA-ICSI (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.82, 1065 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). Four RCTs reported on clinical pregnancy. There may be little or no difference between groups: 37% chance of pregnancy with ICSI versus 34% to 40% chance with HA-ICSI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09, 3492 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).HA-ICSI compared to SpermSlowOne RCT compared HA-ICSI to SpermSlow. The quality of the evidence was very low. We are uncertain whether HA-ICSI improves live birth compared to SpermSlow (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.01, 100 women) or clinical pregnancy (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.68, 100 women). We are uncertain whether HA-ICSI reduces miscarriage per woman (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.81, 100 women) or per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.44, 41 women).Magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) compared to ICSIOne RCT compared MACS to ICSI for live birth; three reported clinical pregnancy; and two reported miscarriage. The quality of the evidence was very low. We are uncertain whether MACS improves live birth (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 4.29, 62 women) or clinical pregnancy (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.31, 413 women, I2 = 81%). We are also uncertain if MACS reduces miscarriage per woman (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.16 to 5.63, 150 women, I2 = 0%) or per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.51, 95%CI 0.09 to 2.82, 53 women, I2=0)Zeta sperm selection compared to ICSIOne RCT evaluated Zeta sperm selection. The quality of the evidence was very low. We are uncertain of the effect of Zeta sperm selection on live birth (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.56, 203 women) or clinical pregnancy (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.75, 203 women). We are also uncertain if Zeta sperm selection reduces miscarriage per woman (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.37, 203 women) or per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.68, 1 RCT, 62 women).MACS compared to HA-ICSIOne RCT compared MACS to HA-ICSI. This study did not report on live birth. The quality of the evidence was very low. We are uncertain of the effect on miscarriage per woman (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.10 to 23.35, 78 women) or per clinical pregnancy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.64, 37 women). We are also uncertain of the effect on clinical pregnancy (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.27, 78 women). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that sperm selected by hyaluronic acid binding may have little or no effect on live birth or clinical pregnancy but may reduce miscarriage. We are uncertain of the effect of Zeta sperm selection on live birth, clinical pregnancy, and miscarriage due principally to the very low quality of the evidence for this intervention. We are uncertain of the effect of the other selection techniques on live birth, miscarriage, or pregnancy.Further high-quality studies, including the awaited data from the identified ongoing studies, are required to evaluate whether any of these advanced sperm selection techniques can be recommended for use in routine practice.

Sequential inactivated (IPV) and live oral (OPV) poliovirus vaccines for preventing poliomyelitis.

BACKGROUND: Poliomyelitis mainly affects unvaccinated children under five years of age, causing irreversible paralysis or even death. The oral polio vaccine (OPV) contains live attenuated virus, which can, in rare cases, cause a paralysis known as vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP), and also vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs) due to acquired neurovirulence after prolonged duration of replication. The incidence of poliomyelitis caused by wild polio virus (WPV) has declined dramatically since the introduction of OPV and later the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), however, the cases of paralysis linked to the OPV are currently more frequent than those related to the WPV. Therefore, in 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended at least one IPV dose preceding routine immunisation with OPV to reduce VAPPs and VDPVs until polio could be eradicated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity of sequential IPV-OPV immunisation schemes compared to either OPV or IPV alone. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 14 other databases, three trials registers and reports of adverse effects on four web sites. We also searched the references of identified studies, relevant reviews and contacted authors to identify additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, nationwide uncontrolled before-after studies (UBAs), interrupted time series (ITS) and controlled ITS comparing sequential IPV-OPV schedules (one or more IPV doses followed by one or more OPV doses) with IPV alone, OPV alone or non-sequential IPV-OPV combinations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies: 16 RCTs involving 6407 healthy infants (age range 96 to 975 days, mean 382 days), one ITS with 28,330 infants and four nationwide studies (two ITS, two UBA). Ten RCTs were conducted in high-income countries; five in the USA, two in the UK, and one each in Chile, Israel, and Oman. The remaining six RCTs were conducted in middle-income countries; China, Bangladesh, Guatemala, India, and Thailand. We rated all included RCTs at low or unclear risk of bias for randomisation domains, most at high or unclear risk of attrition bias, and half at high or unclear risk for conflict of interests. Almost all RCTs were at low risk for the remaining domains. ITSs and UBAs were mainly considered at low risk of bias for most domains. IPV-OPV versus OPV It is uncertain if an IPV followed by OPV schedule is better than OPV alone at reducing the number of WPV cases (very low-certainty evidence); however, it may reduce VAPP cases by 54% to 100% (three nationwide studies; low-certainty evidence). There is little or no difference in vaccination coverage between IPV-OPV and OPV-only schedules (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.06; 1 ITS study; low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there is little or no difference between the two schedule types for the number of serious adverse events (SAEs) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.70; 4 studies, 1948 participants; low-certainty evidence); or the number of people with protective humoral response P1 (moderate-certainty evidence), P2 (for the most studied schedule; two IPV doses followed by OPV; low-certainty evidence), and P3 (low-certainty evidence). Two IPV doses followed by bivalent OPV (IIbO) may reduce P2 neutralising antibodies compared to trivalent OPV (moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to P1 or P2 neutralising antibodies following an IIO schedule or OPV alone (low-certainty evidence). Both IIO and IIbO schedules may increase P3 neutralising antibodies compared to OPV (moderate-certainty evidence). It may also lead to lower mucosal immunity given increased faecal excretion of P1 (low-certainty evidence), P2 and P3 (moderate-certainty evidence) after OPV challenge. IPV-OPV versus IPV It is uncertain if IPV-OPV is more effective than IPV alone at reducing the number of WPV cases (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding VAPP cases. There is no clear evidence of a difference between IPV-OPV and OPV schedules for the number of people with protective humoral response (low- and moderate-certainty evidence). IPV-OPV schedules may increase mean titres of P1 neutralising antibodies compared to OPV alone (low- and moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect on P2 and P3 titres is not clear (very low- and moderate-certainty evidence). IPV-OPV probably reduces the number of people with P3 poliovirus faecal excretion after OPV challenge with IIO and IIOO sequences (moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce the number with P2 (low-certainty evidence), but not with P1 (very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the schedules in number of SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43; 2 studies, 1063 participants, low-certainty evidence). The number of persons with P2 protective humoral immunity and P2 neutralising antibodies are probably lower with most sequential schemes without P2 components (i.e. bOPV) than with trivalent OPV or IVP alone (moderate-certainty evidence). IPV (3)-OPV versus IPV (2)-OPV One study (137 participants) showed no clear evidence of a difference between three IPV doses followed by OPV and two IPV doses followed by OPV, on the number of people with P1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03), P2 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03), or P3 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05) protective humoral and intestinal immunity; all moderate-certainty evidence. This study did not report on any other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: IPV-OPV compared to OPV may reduce VAPPs without affecting vaccination coverage, safety or humoral response, except P2 with sequential schemes without P2 components, but increase poliovirus faecal excretion after OPV challenge for some polio serotypes. Compared to IPV-only schedules, IPV-OPV may have little or no difference on SAEs, probably has little or no effect on persons with protective humoral response, may increase neutralising antibodies, and probably reduces faecal excretion after OPV challenge of certain polio serotypes. Using three IPV doses as part of a IPV-OPV schedule does not appear to be better than two IPV doses for protective humoral response. Sequential schedules during the transition from OPV to IPV-only immunisation schedules seems a reasonable option aligned with current WHO recommendations. Findings could help decision-makers to optimise polio vaccination policies, reducing inequities between countries.

Vasodilators for women undergoing fertility treatment.

BACKGROUND: The rate of successful pregnancies brought to term has barely increased since the first assisted reproductive technology (ART) technique became available. Vasodilators have been proposed to increase endometrial receptivity, thicken the endometrium, and favour uterine relaxation, all of which could improve uterine receptivity and enhance the chances for successful assisted pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vasodilators in women undergoing fertility treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers, and websites: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of of Controlled Trials, via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, the Open System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenSIGLE), the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of relevant articles. We conducted the search in October 2017 and applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vasodilators alone or in combination with other treatments versus placebo or no treatment or versus other agents in women undergoing fertility treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and calculated risk ratios (RRs). We combined study data using a fixed-effect model and assessed evidence quality using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methods. Our primary outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and vasodilator side effects. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, endometrial thickness, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies with a total of 1326 women. All included studies compared a vasodilator versus placebo or no treatment. We judged most of these studies as having unclear risk of bias. Overall, the quality of evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes. The main limitations were imprecision due to low numbers of events and participants and risk of bias due to unclear methods of randomisation.Vasodilators probably make little or no difference in rates of live birth compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.69; three RCTs; N = 350; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) but probably increase overall rates of side effects including headache and tachycardia (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.66; four RCTs; N = 418; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence suggests that if 236 per 1000 women achieve live birth with placebo or no treatment, then between 196 and 398 per 1000 will do so with the use of vasodilators.Compared with placebo or no treatment, vasodilators may slightly improve clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.77; 11 RCTs; N = 1054; I² = 6%; low-quality evidence). Vasodilators probably make little or no difference in rates of multiple gestation (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.42; three RCTs; N = 370; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), miscarriage (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.86; three RCTs; N = 350; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), or ectopic pregnancy (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.69; two RCTs; N = 250; I² = 5%; low-quality evidence). All studies found benefit for endometrial thickening, but reported effects varied (I² = 92%) and ranged from a mean difference of 0.80 higher (95% CI 0.18 to 1.42) to 3.57 higher (95% CI 3.01 to 4.13) with very low-quality evidence, so we are uncertain how to interpret these results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was insufficient to show whether vasodilators increase the live birth rate in women undergoing fertility treatment. However, low-quality evidence suggests that vasodilators may slightly increase clinical pregnancy rates. Moderate-quality evidence shows that vasodilators increase overall side effects in comparison with placebo or no treatment. Adequately powered studies are needed so that each treatment can be evaluated more accurately.

[Establishing research priorities for chronic kidney disease of non-traditional causes in Central AmericaDeterminação de prioridades em pesquisa da doença renal crônica associada a causas não tradicionais na América Central]. / Establecimiento de prioridades de investigación en la enfermedad renal crónica de causas no tradicionales en Centroamérica.

INTRODUCTION: In 2013, the PAHO Member States recognized the epidemic of chronic kidney disease of non-traditional causes (CKDnT) as a serious public health problem. This article describes the establishment of research priorities to comprehensively address CKDnT in Central America. METHODS: Following a search of the literature for research studies carried out in Central America and prior research agendas on CKD, a virtual survey was conducted using the Delphi methodology. The respondents were identified from various sources. The first round sought to refine and add research topics and to prioritize those deemed most relevant. The second round prioritized the most relevant topics. A fuzzy-sets analysis was carried out to estimate decision thresholds and scores for each topic. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 83 Spanish-speaking and 38 English-speaking prospective respondents. The response rate was 46.2%. For the second round, the survey was sent to 56 Spanish-speaking and 16 English-speaking first-round respondents. Eighteen topics within 10 research areas were prioritized: public policies, determinants, etiology, diagnosis and treatment of CKD, primary prevention, service delivery, human resources, information systems, and funding. Research on CKDnT was found to be scarce and restricted to certain topics. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to etiological factors, great importance was assigned to aspects related to the health system response, including service delivery approaches, human resources, funding, and occupational and environmental aspects.

INTRODUÇÃO: Em 2013, os Estados Membros da OPAS reconheceram a epidemia de doença renal crônica associada a causas não tradicionais como um sério problema de saúde pública. Este artigo descreve a determinação de prioridades em pesquisa para uma abordagem ampla da doença renal crônica associada a causas não tradicionais na América Central. MÉTODOS: Foi estruturada uma pesquisa virtual com o uso da metodologia Delphi e foi feita uma busca dos estudos realizados na América Central e das agendas de pesquisa anteriores sobre doença renal crônica. Os entrevistados eram provenientes de fontes diversas. Na primeira rodada, buscou-se refinar e acrescentar tópicos de pesquisa e priorizar os mais relevantes. Na segunda rodada, foram priorizados os tópicos mais relevantes. Foi realizada uma análise com o uso de conjuntos nebulosos para estimar limiares de decisão e pontuações por tópico. RESULTADOS: A pesquisa foi enviada primeiramente a 83 indivíduos falantes da língua espanhola e 38 falantes da língua inglesa, com taxa de resposta de 46,2%. Na segunda rodada, a pesquisa foi enviada aos 56 falantes da língua espanhola e 16 falantes da língua inglesa que haviam respondido a primeira rodada da pesquisa. Foram priorizados 18 tópicos de pesquisa distribuídos em 10 áreas: políticas públicas, determinantes, etiologia, diagnóstico e tratamento da doença renal crônica, prevenção primária, prestação de serviços, recursos humanos, sistemas de informação e financiamento. Foi verificado que a pesquisa em doença renal crônica associada a causas não tradicionais é escassa e está restrita a determinados tópicos. CONCLUSÕES: Além dos fatores etiológicos, foi dada grande relevância a aspectos relacionados à resposta dos sistemas de saúde, incluindo o método de prestação de serviços, recursos humanos, financiamento e aspectos ocupacionais e ambientais.

Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology.

BACKGROUND: Advances in cell culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) practice from cleavage stage embryo transfer to blastocyst stage transfer. The rationale for blastocyst transfer is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos, thus resulting in better live birth rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether blastocyst stage (day 5 to 6) embryo transfers improve the live birth rate, and other associated outcomes, compared with cleavage stage (day 2 to 3) embryo transfers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Bio extracts from inception to 4th April 2016. We also searched registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of studies retrieved. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth and cumulative clinical pregnancy rates. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, high order pregnancy, miscarriage, failure to transfer embryos, and embryo freezing. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs (4031 couples or women).The live birth rate following fresh transfer was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (odds ratio (OR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 1.82; 13 RCTs, 1630 women, I(2) = 45%, low quality evidence) following fresh transfer. This suggests that if 29% of women achieve live birth after fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 32% and 42% would do so after fresh blastocyst stage transfer.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates per couple of cumulative pregnancy following fresh and frozen-thawed transfer after one oocyte retrieval (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22; 5 RCTs, 632 women, I(2) = 71%, very low quality evidence).The clinical pregnancy rate was also higher in the blastocyst transfer group, following fresh transfer (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.47; 27 RCTs, 4031 women, I(2) = 56%, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if 36% of women achieve clinical pregnancy after fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 39% and 46% would do so after fresh blastocyst stage transfer.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.33; 19 RCTs, 3019 women, I(2) = 30%, low quality evidence), or miscarriage (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; 18 RCTs, 2917 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). These data are incomplete as under 70% of studies reported these outcomes.Embryo freezing rates were lower in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57; 14 RCTs, 2292 women, I(2) = 84%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if 60% of women have embryos frozen after cleavage stage transfer, between 37% and 46% would do so after blastocyst stage transfer. Failure to transfer any embryos was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.55; 17 RCTs, 2577 women, I(2) = 36%, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if 1% of women have no embryos transferred in (planned) fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 2% and 4% will have no embryos transferred in (planned) fresh blastocyst stage transfer.The evidence was of low quality for most outcomes. The main limitation was serious risk of bias, associated with failure to describe acceptable methods of randomisation, and unclear or high risk of attrition bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence for live birth and moderate quality evidence for clinical pregnancy that fresh blastocyst stage transfer is associated with higher rates than fresh cleavage stage transfer. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in cumulative pregnancy rates derived from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles following a single oocyte retrieval, but the evidence for this outcome was very low quality. Thus, although there is a benefit favouring blastocyst transfer in fresh cycles, it remains unclear whether the day of transfer impacts on cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates. Future RCTs should report rates of live birth, cumulative live birth, and miscarriage to enable couples or women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and service providers to make well informed decisions on the best treatment option available.

[Successful treatment of a cervical heterotopic pregnancy following an in vitro fertilization procedure]. / Tratamiento exitoso de un embarazo heterotópico cervical luego de un procedimiento de fecundación in vitro.

A 37-year-old nulligravida infertile female had a cervical heterotopic pregnancy following an in vitro fertilization procedure. Early intervention on the 6th week of gestation with a manual vacuum aspirator reached to remove the cervical pregnancy. Ligation of the descending cervical branches of the uterine arteries and a cervical cerclage, were placed before the aspiration, for prevention of possible hemorrhage. Successful removal of the cervical pregnancy was achieved with only mild bleeding. An intrauterine pregnancy progressed to viability without complications, resulting in a vaginal delivery of a preterm live-birth at 35.4 weeks, of a male that weighted 2740 g.

Advanced sperm selection techniques for assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) bring together gametes outside of the body to enhance the probability of fertilisation and pregnancy. Advanced sperm selection techniques are increasingly being employed in ART, most commonly in cycles utilising ICSI. Advanced sperm selection techniques are thought to improve the chance that structurally intact and mature sperm with high DNA integrity are selected for fertilisation. Advanced sperm selection strategies include selection according to surface charge; sperm apoptosis; sperm birefringence; ability to bind to hyaluronic acid; and sperm morphology under ultra-high magnification. These techniques theoretically improve ART outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of advanced sperm selection techniques on ART outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: Systematic search of electronic databases (Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS)), trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), conference abstracts (Web of Knowledge) and grey literature (OpenGrey) for relevant randomised controlled trials. We handsearched the reference lists of included studies and similar reviews. The search was conducted in May 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an advanced sperm selection technique versus standard IVF or ICSI or versus another advanced sperm selection technique. We excluded studies of sperm selection using ultra-high magnification (intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection, or IMSI), as they are the subject of a separate Cochrane review. Quasi-randomised and pseudo-randomised trials were excluded. Our primary outcome measure was live birth rate per woman randomly assigned. Secondary outcome measures included clinical pregnancy per woman randomly assigned, miscarriage per clinical pregnancy and fetal abnormality per clinical pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of studies and risk of bias, and performed data extraction. Disagreements were resolved by consultation with a third review author. Study investigators were consulted to resolve other queries that arose. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to combine studies using a fixed-effect model, if sufficient data were available. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs were included in the review. Both evaluated sperm selection by hyaluronanic acid binding for ICSI, but only one reported live births. No studies were identified that were related to surface charge selection, sperm apoptosis or sperm birefringence.One RCT compared hyaluronanic acid binding versus conventional ICSI. Live birth was not reported. Evidence was insufficient to show whether there was a difference between groups in clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.22, one RCT, 482 women). This evidence was deemed to be of low quality, mainly as the result of poor reporting of methods and findings. Miscarriage data were unclear, and fetal abnormality rates were not reported.The other RCT compared two different hyaluronanic acid binding techniques, SpermSlow and physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection (PISCI). Evidence was insufficient to indicate whether there was a difference between groups in rates of live birth (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.05, one RCT, 99 women), clinical pregnancy (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.71, one RCT, 99 women) or miscarriage (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.44, one RCT, 41 women). The evidence for these comparisons was deemed to be of low quality, as it was limited by imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. Fetal abnormality rates were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was insufficient to allow review authors to determine whether sperm selected by hyaluronanic acid binding improve live birth or pregnancy outcomes in ART, and no clear data on adverse effects were available. Evidence was also insufficient to show whether there is a difference in efficacy between the hyaluronic acid binding methods SpermSlow and PICSI. No randomised evidence evaluating sperm selection by sperm apoptosis, sperm birefringence or surface charge was found.Further studies of suitable quality are required to evaluate whether any of these advanced sperm selection techniques can be recommended for use in clinical practice.

Vasodilators for women undergoing fertility treatment.

BACKGROUND: Since 1978, when Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards achieved the birth of the first test tube baby, assisted reproductive techniques have been refined and improved. However, the rate of successful pregnancies brought to term has barely increased. Therefore closer evaluation of the interventions is needed along with working towards improving uterus receptivity. Vasodilators have been proposed to increase endometrial receptivity, thicken the endometrium and favour uterine relaxation, all of which could improve uterine receptivity and enhance the chances for successful assisted pregnancies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vasodilators in women undergoing fertility treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers and websites: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register of controlled trials, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), The Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, the Open System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenSIGLE), the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) and ClinicalTrials.gov. The search was conducted in February 2014. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vasodilators alone or in combination with other treatments compared with placebo or with other agents in women undergoing fertility treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using the numbers of events in the control and intervention groups of each study. Study data were combined using a random-effects model, and evidence quality was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methods. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies with a total of 797 women were included in this review. Most of the studies were judged as having an unclear risk of bias. Three studies reported live births, two reported vasodilator-related side effects, 10 reported clinical pregnancies (diagnosed by differing criteria) and four reported other side effects (multiple gestation, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy).Overall, no evidence suggested that treatment with vasodilators increased live birth rates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.69, P value 0.37, three RCTs, 350 women, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). This indicates that among women undergoing fertility treatment who have a 24% chance of live birth without the use of vasodilators, between 19% and 40% will achieve live birth with the use of vasodilators.No evidence was found of a difference between vasodilators and placebo or no treatment in the incidence of treatment side effects (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 7.93, P value 0.55, two RCTs, 258 women, I(2) = 32%, low-quality evidence). Nor did any evidence show a difference between them in terms of multiple gestation, spontaneous abortion/miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy rates. However few relevant data were available.Overall, treatment with vasodilators was associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.92, P value 0.05, eight RCTs, 717 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence). However, confidence intervals do not rule out no effect of the intervention, and when studies of vasodilators combined with another medication (vitamin E or oestrogen) were excluded, the effects of treatment with vasodilators alone on clinical pregnancy rates were more uncertain.The evidence was of low or moderate quality, and the main limitations were imprecision and lack of clarity about study methods. Risk of publication bias could not be assessed because of the low number of identified studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was insufficient to show that vasodilators increased the live birth rate in women undergoing fertility treatment. However, low-quality evidence suggests that vasodilators may increase clinical pregnancy rates in comparison with placebo or no treatment. Evidence was insufficient to show whether any particular vasodilator, administered alone or in combination with other active medications, was superior, and evidence was insufficient to allow the review authors to reach any conclusions regarding adverse effects. Adequately powered studies are needed so that each treatment can be evaluated more accurately.

Vitrification versus slow freezing for women undergoing oocyte cryopreservation.

BACKGROUND: Oocyte cryopreservation is a technique with considerable potential in reproductive medicine, including  fertility preservation, as a way of delaying childbearing and as part of oocyte donation programs. Although the technique was relatively ineffective at first more recently numerous modifications have led to higher success rates. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of vitrification and slow freezing as oocyte cryopreservation techniques for fertility outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproduction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases, trial registers and websites, including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO (date of search 3 March 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitrification and slow freezing for oocyte preservation in women undergoing assisted reproduction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the data from eligible studies and assessed their risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by a third review author. Data extracted included study characteristics and outcome data. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs were included in the review (106 participants). Neither study reported live birth rate. Vitrification was associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared to slow freezing (RR 3.86, 95% CI 1.63 to 9.11, P = 0.002, 2 RCTs, 106 women, I(2) = 8%, moderate quality evidence). The effect of vitrification compared to slow freezing on ongoing pregnancy rates was only reported in one small study, with inconclusive findings (RR 6.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 43.04, P = 0.07, one RCT, 28 women, low quality evidence).No data were reported on adverse effects, nor were any other outcomes reported in the included trials. The evidence was limited by imprecision. We assessed the included studies as at low to unclear risk of bias as the methods were not well described. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oocyte vitrification compared to slow freezing probably increases clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing assisted reproduction. However, the total number of women and pregnancies were low and the imprecision is high which limits applicability. The effect on ongoing pregnancy is uncertain as data were sparse. No data were available on live births or adverse effects.

[Adherence to research reporting guidelines in biomedical journals in Latin America and the Caribbean]. / Adherencia a las guías de informe sobre investigaciones en revistas biomédicas en América Latina y el Caribe.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the familiarity of the editors of journals indexed in the LILACS database with the guidelines for reporting on and publishing research- promoted by the EQUATOR Network (Enhancing QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research)-, the journals' requirements for use of the guidelines, and the editors' opinions regarding the reasons for the low rate of use. METHODS: LILACS editors were surveyed by e-mail about the guidelines and their availability at the EQUATOR website, and about the requirements and difficulties in using them. RESULTS: Of 802 editors, 16.4% answered the survey. More than half said they were not aware of the guidelines (especially STROBE and PRISMA) and 30% were familiar with the EQUATOR Network. CONCLUSIONS: The first Latin American and Caribbean study on LILACS editors' familiarity with the guidelines revealed that more than half of them were not familiar either with the guidelines or the EQUATOR Network.

Burden and typing of rotavirus group A in Latin America and the Caribbean: systematic review and meta-analysis.

The efficacy of licensed rotavirus vaccines has only been shown against certain rotavirus group A (RV-A) types. It is critical to understand the burden of rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) and its prevalent types to assess the potential impact of these vaccines in Latin America and the Caribbean (LA&C). We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses of all the available evidence reported from 1990 to 2009 on the burden of rotavirus disease and strains circulating in LA&C. Eligible studies--185 country-level reports, 174 951 faecal samples--were selected from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, regional Ministries of Health, PAHO, regional proceedings, doctoral theses, reference lists of included studies and consulting experts. Arc-sine transformations and DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model were used for meta-analyses. The proportion of gastroenteritis cases due to rotavirus was 24.3% (95%CI 22.3-26.4) and the incidence of RVGE was 170 per 1000 children-years (95%CI 130-210). We estimated a global annual mortality for 22 countries of 88.2 (95%CI 79.3-97.1) deaths per 100 000 under 5 years (47 000 deaths).The most common G type detected was G1 (34.2%), followed by G9 (14.6%), and G2 (14.4%). The most common P types detected were P[8] (56.2%), P[4] (22.1%) and P[1] 5.4%, and the most prevalent P-G type associations were P[8]G1 17.9%, P[4]G2 9.1% and P[8]G9 8.8%. In the last 10 years, G9 circulation increased remarkably and G5 almost disappeared. More recently, G12 appeared and P[4]G2 re-emerged. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis of rotavirus infection and burden of disease in LA&C.

Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology.

BACKGROUND: Advances in cell culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice from early cleavage embryo transfer to blastocyst stage transfer. The rationale for blastocyst culture is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos thus resulting in higher implantation rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine if blastocyst stage (Day 5 to 6) embryo transfers (ETs) improve live birth rate and other associated outcomes compared with cleavage stage (Day 2 to 3) ETs. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Bio extracts. The last search date was 21 February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included if they were randomised and compared the effectiveness of early cleavage versus blastocyst stage transfers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Of the 50 trials that were identified, 23 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed (five new studies were added in this update). The primary outcome was rate of live birth. Secondary outcomes were rates per couple of clinical pregnancy, cumulative clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, high order pregnancy, miscarriage, failure to transfer embryos and cryopreservation. Quality assessment, data extraction and meta-analysis were performed following Cochrane guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs reported live birth rates and there was evidence of a significant difference in live birth rate per couple favouring blastocyst culture (1510 women, Peto OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74) (Day 2 to 3: 31%; Day 5 to 6: 38.8%, I(2) = 40%). This means that for a typical rate of 31% in clinics that use early cleavage stage cycles, the rate of live births would increase to 32% to 42% if clinics used blastocyst transfer.There was no difference in clinical pregnancy rate between early cleavage and blastocyst transfer in the 23 RCTs (Peto OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.32) (Day 2 to 3: 38.6%; Day 5 to 6: 41.6%) and no difference in miscarriage rate (13 RCTs, Peto OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.60). The four RCTs that reported cumulative pregnancy rates (266 women, Peto OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.25) (Day 2 to 3: 56.8%; Day 5 to 6: 46.3%) significantly favoured early cleavage. Embryo freezing rates (11 RCTs, 1729 women, Peto OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.35 to 3.51) and failure to transfer embryos (16 RCTs, 2459 women, OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51) (Day 2 to 3: 3.4%; Day 5 to 6: 8.9%) favoured cleavage stage transfer. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that there is a small significant difference in live birth rates in favour of blastocyst transfer (Day 5 to 6) compared to cleavage stage transfer (Day 2 to 3). However, cumulative clinical pregnancy rates from cleavage stage (derived from fresh and thaw cycles) resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates than from blastocyst cycles. The most likely explanation for this is the higher rates of frozen embryos and lower failure to transfer rates per couple obtained from cleavage stage protocols. Future RCTs should report miscarriage, live birth and cumulative live birth rates to enable ART consumers and service providers to make well informed decisions on the best treatment option available.

A shared egg donor program: which is the minimum number of oocytes to be allocated?

PURPOSE: To evaluate which is the minimum number of oocytes to be allocated to each recipient in a shared egg donor program. METHODS: We analyzed 953 recipients that received at least 4 metaphase II (MII) oocytes in the period 2006-2008. We retrospectively divided the recipients according to the number of MII oocytes actually received. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found among the analyzed strata in clinical pregnancy rate (A:43.7%; B:45.6%; C:48.6%; D:45.5%; E:53%, P=NS) and miscarriage rate. However, the rate of top quality transferred embryos, and the embryo freezing rate were significantly higher among those recipients that received 7 or more mature eggs. CONCLUSIONS: After a large sample was analyzed, no significant differences in fresh embryo transfer outcome were encountered when a different number of oocytes was allocated. A minimum of 4 MII oocytes seems to achieve satisfactory pregnancy rates in our shared egg donor program.

Endometrial preparation for women undergoing embryo transfer with frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes.

BACKGROUND: If a fresh embryo, assisted reproductive technology procedure cycle is unsuccessful and there are frozen embryos available, a frozen-thawed embryo transfer is performed. In some specific cases women may undergo oocyte donation treatment. In both situations the endometrium is primed by the administration of estrogen and progesterone. To prevent the possibility of spontaneous ovulation, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists are frequently used. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the most effective endometrial preparation for women undergoing transfer with frozen embryos or embryos from donor oocytes with regard to the subsequent live birth rate. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and abstracts of reproductive societies' meetings (from inception). No language restrictions were applied. Experts in the field were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials evaluating endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial risk of bias, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty two randomised controlled trials were included. Five studies analysed the use of a GnRH agonist versus control. No significant benefit was demonstrated when using GnRH agonists. No evidence of statistically significant benefit was found for one GnRH agonist over another, or vaginal over intramuscular progesterone administration. No difference in pregnancy rate was demonstrated when no treatment was compared to aspirin, steroids, ovarian stimulation, or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) prior to embryo transfer, although using hCG several times before the oocyte retrieval decreases the pregnancy rate. Finally, when oocyte recipients were studied further, starting progesterone on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) or the day after OPU produced a significantly higher pregnancy rate (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.08) than when recipients started progesterone the day prior to OPU. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend any one particular protocol for endometrial preparation over another with regard to pregnancy rates after embryo transfers. These were either frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes. However, there is evidence of a lower pregnancy rate and a higher cycle cancellation rate when the progesterone supplementation is commenced prior to oocyte retrieval in oocyte donation cycles. Adequately powered studies are needed to evaluate each treatment more accurately.