Are we leaving money on the table in infertility RCTs? Trialists should statistically adjust for prespecified, prognostic covariates to increase power.

Infertility randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often too small to detect realistic treatment effects. Large observational studies have been proposed as a solution. However, this strategy threatens to weaken the evidence base further, because non-random assignment to treatments makes it impossible to distinguish effects of treatment from confounding factors. Alternative solutions are required. Power in an RCT can be increased by adjusting for prespecified, prognostic covariates when performing statistical analysis, and if stratified randomization or minimization has been used, it is essential to adjust in order to get the correct answer. We present data showing that this simple, free and frequently necessary strategy for increasing power is seldom employed, even in trials appearing in leading journals. We use this article to motivate a pedagogical discussion and provide a worked example. While covariate adjustment cannot solve the problem of underpowered trials outright, there is an imperative to use sound methodology to maximize the information each trial yields.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Evaluation of treatments for Bartholin's cyst or abscess: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: No consensus on the management of symptomatic cysts or abscesses of the Bartholin's gland exists. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions for a symptomatic Bartholin's cyst or abscess. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched bibliographical databases from inception to April 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials evaluating a surgical intervention for the treatment of a symptomatic Bartholin's cyst or abscess. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eight trials, reporting data from 699 women, were included. Study characteristics and methodological quality were recorded for each trial. Summary estimates were calculated using random-effects methods. MAIN RESULTS: When considering the recurrence of a symptomatic Bartholin's cyst or abscess, the evidence was consistent with notable effects in either direction (risk ratio [RR] 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-1.40) when comparing marsupialisation with incision, drainage and insertion of a Word catheter. Limited inference could be made when comparing marsupialisation with incision, drainage and silver nitrate insertion (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.57-1.75), and incision, drainage and cavity closure (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.01-4.89). There was limited reporting of secondary outcomes, including haematoma, infectious morbidity and persistent dyspareunia. CONCLUSIONS: Current randomised trial evidence does not support the use of any single surgical intervention for the treatment of a symptomatic cyst or abscess of the Bartholin's gland. PROSPECTIVE REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42018088553. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Further research is needed to identify an effective treatment for #Bartholin's cyst or abscess. @jamesmnduffy.

Research priority setting in women's health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance. OBJECTIVE: To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women's health. SEARCH STRATEGY: Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database. SELECTION CRITERIA: Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results. MAIN RESULTS: Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52-4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39-104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results. CONCLUSION: Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women's health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy.

Inadequate safety reporting in pre-eclampsia trials: a systematic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials and their syntheses in meta-analyses offer a unique opportunity to assess the frequency and severity of adverse reactions. OBJECTIVE: To assess safety reporting in pre-eclampsia trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic search using bibliographic databases, including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE, from inception to August 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials evaluating anticonvulsant or antihypertensive medication for pre-eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics appraising the adequacy of adverse reaction and toxicity reporting. MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 randomised trials. Six trials (10%) were registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, two registry records referred to adverse reactions, stating 'safety and toleration' and 'possible side effects' would be collected. Twenty-six trials (43%) stated the frequency of withdrawals within each study arm, and five trials (8%) adequately reported these withdrawals. Adverse reactions were inconsistently reported across eligible trials: 24 (40%) reported no serious adverse reactions and 36 (60%) reported no mild adverse reactions. The methods of definition or measurement of adverse reactions were infrequently reported within published trial reports. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-eclampsia trials regularly omit critical information related to safety. Despite the paucity of reporting, randomised trials collect an enormous amount of safety data. Developing and implementing a minimum data set could help to improve safety reporting, permitting a more balanced assessment of interventions by considering the trade-off between the benefits and harms. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (DRF-2014-07-051), UK; Maternity Forum, Royal Society of Medicine, UK. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Developing @coreoutcomes could help to improve safety reporting in #preeclampsia trials. @NIHR_DC.

Non-publication and publication bias in reproductive medicine: a cohort analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Does publication bias or non-publication exist in fertility trials presented as conference abstracts? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study did not detect any publication bias; however, it did identify a high level of non-publication, with only 49% of abstracts reaching full-text publication four or more years after abstract presentation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the foundation of evidence based medicine. Non-publication or publication deficit refer to the failure to publish trial results. A publication bias exists when there is any tendency on the parts of the investigators or editors to fail to publish study results on the basis or strength of the study findings. Both present a serious problem for researchers, clinicians and policymakers alike, and ultimately impact on patient care. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study identified 337 fertility RCTs presented as conference abstracts between 2007 and 2010, as captured by an electronic search of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Database. After excluding ineligible trials and duplicates, 224 abstracts remained. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A search for the full-text papers of each abstract was undertaken in Pubmed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Google in May 2015 using a probabilistic approach. Trial authors were contacted to query the publication status of abstracts when no full-text was identified. The association between individual variables and the probability of publication, and time to publication, was assessed using logistic regression and Cox regression, respectively. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 224 included abstracts, only 110 (49%; 95% CI: 42.6, 55.6) were found to be published as full-text articles. Publication bias was not identified in this cohort; studies with positive results had a similar probability of reaching full-text publication 52/113 (46%; 95% CI: 37.0, 55.3) as studies with non-positive (negative or null) results 58/111 (52%; 95% CI: 17.8, 33.9) (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.02; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.97). Similarly, the time from abstract presentation to full-text publication was similar in studies with positive and non-positive results. Oral presentations were more likely to be published, and to be published sooner, than poster presentations (poster presentation AOR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.61 and adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.86). Studies that were not registered were less likely to be published and to have delayed publication, than studies which were registered either prospectively or retrospectively (AOR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.44 and AHR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.72). Abstracts which were presented a longer time ago also had a higher probability of reaching full-text publication (P  = 0.01). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Commencing with a cohort of RCTs from ethics committee registers may provide a better picture of the extent of non-publication and publication bias, as not all trials reach the stage of abstract presentation. It is also possible that the search did not identify all published trials, as some may have been published after the follow-up period. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study did not identify any publication bias. However, only half of the abstracts in this cohort have been published as full-text articles, four or more years after their presentation at a conference. This is similar to publication rates reported previously for fertility trials, and is despite increasing awareness of the importance of publishing trial results, and subsequent requirements for all RCTs to be registered prior to trial initiation. A better understanding of the reasons for non-publication should assist in facilitating the prompt full-text publication of RCTs in the future. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funding provided from the University of Auckland. All authors declare they have no conflicts of interest in relation to this article. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Outcome reporting across randomised controlled trials evaluating therapeutic interventions for pre-eclampsia.

BACKGROUND: Standardising outcome collection and reporting in pre-eclampsia trials requires an appraisal of current outcome reporting. OBJECTIVES: To map maternal and offspring outcome reporting across randomised trials evaluating therapeutic interventions for pre-eclampsia. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised trials were identified by searching bibliographical databases from inception to January 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We systematically extracted and categorised outcome reporting. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-nine randomised trials, reporting data from 31 615 maternal participants and 28 172 of their offspring, were included. Fifty-five different interventions were evaluated. Included trials reported 119 different outcomes, including 72 maternal outcomes and 47 offspring outcomes. Maternal outcomes were inconsistently reported across included trials; for example, 11 trials (14%) reported maternal mortality, reporting data from 12 422 participants, and 16 trials (20%) reported cardiovascular morbidity, reporting data from 14 963 maternal participants. Forty-three trials (54%) reported fetal outcomes and 23 trials (29%) reported neonatal outcomes. Twenty-eight trials (35%) reported offspring mortality. There was poor reporting of childhood outcomes: six trials (8%) reported neurodevelopmental outcomes. Less than half of included trials reported any relevant information regarding harms for maternal participants and their offspring. CONCLUSIONS: Most randomised trials evaluating interventions for pre-eclampsia are missing information on clinically important outcomes, and in particular have neglected to evaluate efficacy and safety in the offspring of participants. Developing and implementing a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, in future pre-eclampsia trials could help to address these issues. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Future #preeclampsia research requires a core outcome set to reduce #research waste. @coreoutcomes @jamesmnduffy International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42015015529; www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.aspID=CRD42015015529.

Educational effectiveness of gynaecological teaching associates: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, among medical students learning the female pelvic examination, the added benefits of training by gynaecological teaching associates compared with training involving a manikin only. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Nine university teaching hospitals. POPULATION: Ninety-four medical students recruited prior to commencing a 4-week obstetrics and gynaecology rotation. METHODS: The control training consisted of lectures, demonstration of the pelvic examination on a manikin, and opportunities to practise on this low-fidelity simulation (n = 40). The experimental group received additional gynaecological teaching associate training, delivered by pairs of experienced associates to groups of four medical students (n = 54). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes measured at the end of the rotation included knowledge of the correct order of examination components (Yes/No), and student comfort [Likert scales anchored between 1 (very uncomfortable) and 4 (very comfortable) on four items] and confidence [Likert scales anchored between 1 (No) and 3 (Yes) on six items]. The primary outcome, measured at the end of the academic year, was the objective structured clinical examination of a female pelvis (score range 0-54). RESULTS: At baseline, the groups were similar in age, gender, and ethnicity. At the end of the clinical rotation, when compared with the control intervention, the experimental intervention had a moderate effect on student knowledge [difference 29.9% (95% CI 11.2-48.6%); P = 0.002] and confidence [difference 1 (95% CI 0-2); P < 0.001], and a large effect on student comfort [difference 1.8 (95% CI 0.6-3.0); P = 0.004]. At the end of the academic year, the experimental intervention had no impact on skills compared with the control [difference 2 (95% CI-1 to 4); P = 0.26]. CONCLUSIONS: Among medical students taught the female pelvic examination by low-fidelity simulation, additional training by gynaecology teaching associates improved knowledge, comfort, and confidence at the end of the clinical rotation but did not improve examination skills at end of the academic year.

Obstetric and neonatal outcomes after natural versus artificial cycle frozen embryo transfer and the role of luteal phase support: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The number of frozen embryo transfers (FET) has increased dramatically over the past decade. Based on current evidence, there is no difference in pregnancy rates when natural cycle FET (NC-FET) is compared to artificial cycle FET (AC-FET) in subfertile women. However, NC-FET seems to be associated with lower risk of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes compared with AC-FET cycles. Currently, there is no consensus about whether NC-FET needs to be combined with luteal phase support (LPS) or not. The question of how to prepare the endometrium for FET has now gained even more importance and taken the dimension of safety into account as it should not simply be reduced to the basic question of effectiveness. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The objective of this project was to determine whether NC-FET, with or without LPS, decreases the risk of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes compared with AC-FET. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out. A literature search was performed using the following databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE from inception to 10 October 2022. Observational studies, including cohort studies, and registries comparing obstetric and neonatal outcomes between singleton pregnancies after NC-FET and those after AC-FET were sought. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs), pooled risk differences (RDs), pooled adjusted ORs, and prevalence estimates with 95% CI using a random effect model, while heterogeneity was assessed by the I2. OUTCOMES: The conducted search identified 2436 studies, 890 duplicates were removed and 1546 studies were screened. Thirty studies (NC-FET n = 56 445; AC-FET n = 57 231) were included, 19 of which used LPS in NC-FET. Birthweight was lower following NC-FET versus AC-FET (mean difference 26.35 g; 95% CI 11.61-41.08, I2 = 63%). Furthermore NC-FET compared to AC-FET resulted in a lower risk of large for gestational age (OR 0.88, 95% 0.83-0.94, I2 = 54%), macrosomia (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.93, I2 = 68%), low birthweight (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.85, I2 = 41%), early pregnancy loss (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.61-0.86, I2 = 70%), preterm birth (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.75-0.85, I2 = 20%), very preterm birth (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53-0.84, I2 = 0%), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50-0.65, I2 = 61%), pre-eclampsia (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.42-0.60, I2 = 44%), placenta previa (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.97, I2 = 0%), and postpartum hemorrhage (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.38-0.48, I2 = 53%). Stratified analyses on LPS use in NC-FET suggested that, compared to AC-FET, NC-FET with LPS decreased preterm birth risk, while NC-FET without LPS did not (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.81). LPS use did not modify the other outcomes. Heterogeneity varied from low to high, while quality of the evidence was very low to moderate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This study confirms that NC-FET decreases the risk of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes compared with AC-FET. We estimate that for each adverse outcome, use of NC-FET may prevent 4 to 22 cases per 1000 women. Consequently, NC-FET should be the preferred treatment in women with ovulatory cycles undergoing FET. Based on very low quality of evidence, the risk of preterm birth be decreased when LPS is used in NC-FET compared to AC-FET. However, because of many uncertainties-the major being the debate about efficacy of the use of LPS-future research is needed on efficacy and safety of LPS and no recommendation can be made about the use of LPS.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies.

STUDY QUESTION: Are there differences in the methodological quality of Cochrane systematic reviews (CRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCRs) of assisted reproductive technologies? SUMMARY ANSWER: CRs on assisted reproduction are of higher methodological quality than similar reviews published in other journals. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The quality of systematic reviews varies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: This was a cross-sectional study of 30 CR and 30 NCR systematic reviews that were randomly selected from the eligible reviews identified from a literature search for the years 2007-2011. MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: We extracted data on the reporting and methodological characteristics of the included systematic reviews. We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the 11-domain Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and subsequently compared CR and NCR systematic reviews. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The AMSTAR quality assessment found that CRs were superior to NCRs. For 10 of 11 AMSTAR domains, the requirements were met in >50% of CRs, but only 4 of 11 domains showed requirements being met in >50% of NCRs. The strengths of CRs are the a priori study design, comprehensive literature search, explicit lists of included and excluded studies and assessments of internal validity. Significant failings in the CRs were found in duplicate study selection and data extraction (67% meeting requirements), assessment for publication bias (53% meeting requirements) and reporting of conflicts of interest (47% meeting requirements). NCRs were more likely to contain methodological weaknesses as the majority of the domains showed <40% of reviews meeting requirements, e.g. a priori study design (17%), duplicate study selection and data extraction (17%), assessment of study quality (27%), study quality in the formulation of conclusions (23%) and reporting of conflict of interests (10%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The AMSTAR assessment can only judge what is reported by authors. Although two of the five authors are involved in the production of CRs, the risk of bias was reduced by not involving these authors in the assessment of the systematic review quality. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Not all systematic reviews are equal. The reader needs to consider the quality of the systematic review when they consider the results and the conclusions of a systematic review. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There are no conflicts with any commercial organization. Funding was provided for the students by the summer studentship programme of the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences of the University of Auckland.

Ovarian stimulation strategies for intrauterine insemination in couples with unexplained infertility: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) is a first-line treatment for unexplained infertility. Gonadotrophins, letrozole and clomiphene citrate (CC) are commonly used agents during IUI-OS and have been compared in multiple aggregate data meta-analyses, with substantial heterogeneity and no analysis on time-to-event outcomes. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is considered the gold standard for evidence synthesis as it can offset inadequate reporting of individual studies by obtaining the IPD, and allows analyses on treatment-covariate interactions to identify couples who benefit most from a particular treatment. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We performed this IPD-MA to compare the effectiveness and safety of ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC and to explore treatment-covariate interactions for important baseline characteristics in couples undergoing IUI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from their inception to 28 June 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI-OS with gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC among couples with unexplained infertility. We contacted the authors of eligible RCTs to share the IPD and established the IUI IPD-MA Collaboration. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were other reproductive outcomes, including time to conception leading to live birth. We performed a one-stage random effects IPD-MA. OUTCOMES: Seven of 22 (31.8%) eligible RCTs provided IPD of 2495 couples (62.4% of the 3997 couples participating in 22 RCTs), of which 2411 had unexplained infertility and were included in this IPD-MA. Six RCTs (n = 1511) compared gonadotrophins with CC, and one (n = 900) compared gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins increased the live birth rate compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.51, I2 = 26%). Low-certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins may also increase the multiple pregnancy rate compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.33-3.54, I2 = 69%). Heterogeneity on multiple pregnancy could be explained by differences in gonadotrophin starting dose and choice of cancellation criteria. Post-hoc sensitivity analysis on RCTs with a low starting dose of gonadotrophins (≤75 IU) confirmed increased live birth rates compared to CC (5 RCTs, 1457 women, RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.51), but analysis on only RCTs with stricter cancellation criteria showed inconclusive evidence on live birth (4 RCTs, 1238 women, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94-1.41). For multiple pregnancy, both sensitivity analyses showed inconclusive findings between gonadotrophins and CC (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.45-1.96; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.32-2.03, respectively). Moderate certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins reduced the time to conception leading to a live birth when compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.63, I2 = 22%). No strong evidence on the treatment-covariate (female age, BMI or primary versus secondary infertility) interactions was found. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: In couples with unexplained infertility undergoing IUI-OS, gonadotrophins increased the chance of a live birth and reduced the time to conception compared to CC, at the cost of a higher multiple pregnancy rate, when not differentiating strategies on cancellation criteria or the starting dose. The treatment effects did not seem to differ in women of different age, BMI or primary versus secondary infertility. In a modern practice where a lower starting dose and stricter cancellation criteria are in place, effectiveness and safety of different agents seem both acceptable, and therefore intervention availability, cost and patients' preferences should factor in the clinical decision-making. As the evidence for comparisons to letrozole is based on one RCT providing IPD, further RCTs comparing letrozole and other interventions for unexplained infertility are needed.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements, and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms, and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management, and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties were entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities, and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI, and IVF), and ethics, access, and organization of care, were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment, and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings, and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research, and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgement, and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/ COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Geoffrey Adamson reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies, and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Andrew Horne reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics. M. Louise Hull reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. Neil Johnson reports research sponsorship from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Jane Stewart reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring, and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

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 assess whether in-line filters on intravenous lines prevent morbidity and mortality in neonates. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were made of the electronic databases MEDLINE (from 1966 to September 2005), EMBASE (from 1980 to September 2005), CINAHL (from 1982 to September 2005) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3 2005 ). There was no language restriction. Further searching included cross references, abstracts, conferences, symposia proceedings, expert informants and journal handsearching. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared the use of intravenous in-line filters with placebo or nothing in neonates were included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The procedures of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG) were followed throughout. Titles and abstracts identified from the search were checked by the review authors. The full text of all studies of possible relevance were obtained. The review authors independently assessed the trials for their methodological quality and subsequent inclusion in the review. Statistical analysis followed the procedures of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Dichotomous data is expressed as relative risk and 95% confidence intervals, and risk difference and 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: There were three eligible studies, which recruited a total of 262 neonates. For most of the outcomes for this review, only one study of 88 neonates contributed eligible data. This review found no significant effect of in-line filters in any of the reported outcomes of overall mortality, proven and unproven septicaemia, phlebitis, necrotizing enterocolitis, duration of cannula patency, number of catheters inserted and financial costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data to determine whether or not the use of intravenous in-line filters prevent morbidity and mortality in neonates. The wide confidence intervals on outcomes indicate the imprecise estimates of treatment effect due to the small numbers of patients and events.

Laundry performance of subtilisin proteases.

Effective laundry protease performance against susceptible stains depends upon both the enzyme itself and the environment in which it must work. In order to technically design superior laundry proteases, a model for protease's mechanism of action in detergents was developed which has been substantiated through-the-wash. While evaluation of this model and/or a given protease's effectiveness could be judged by a variety of methods, the utility of using visual wash performance comparisons, analytical, and stain characterization studies is described. Finally, data comparing the performance of wild type Subtilisin proteases with mutants designed via the projected model are given, demonstrating possible utility of the system.

The impact of body mass index on semen parameters and reproductive hormones in human males: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that body mass index (BMI), especially obesity, is associated with subfertility in men. Semen parameters are central to male fertility and reproductive hormones also play a role in spermatogenesis. This review aimed to investigate the association of BMI with semen parameters and reproductive hormones in men of reproductive age. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases and references from relevant articles were searched in January and February 2009. Outcomes included for semen parameters were sperm concentration, total sperm count, semen volume, motility and morphology. Reproductive hormones included were testosterone, free testosterone, estradiol, FSH, LH, inhibin B and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG). A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate sperm concentration and total sperm count. RESULTS: In total, 31 studies were included. Five studies were suitable for pooling and the meta-analysis found no evidence for a relationship between BMI and sperm concentration or total sperm count. Overall review of all studies similarly revealed little evidence for a relationship with semen parameters and increased BMI. There was strong evidence of a negative relationship for testosterone, SHBG and free testosterone with increased BMI. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review with meta-analysis has not found evidence of an association between increased BMI and semen parameters. The main limitation of this review is that data from most studies could not be aggregated for meta-analysis. Population-based studies with larger sample sizes and longitudinal studies are required.