Evidence-based guideline: unexplained infertility†.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the recommended management for couples presenting with unexplained infertility (UI), based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER: The evidence-based guideline on UI makes 52 recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of UI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: UI is diagnosed in the absence of any abnormalities of the female and male reproductive systems after 'standard' investigations. However, a consensual standardization of the diagnostic work-up is still lacking. The management of UI is traditionally empirical. The efficacy, safety, costs, and risks of treatment options have not been subjected to robust evaluation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for ESHRE guidelines. Following formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches, and assessments were undertaken. Papers written in English and published up to 24 October 2022 were evaluated. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Based on the available evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline development group (GDG). Following stakeholder review of an initial draft, the final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: This guideline aims to help clinicians provide the best care for couples with UI. As UI is a diagnosis of exclusion, the guideline outlined the basic diagnostic procedures that couples should/could undergo during an infertility work-up, and explored the need for additional tests. The first-line treatment for couples with UI was deemed to be IUI in combination with ovarian stimulation. The place of additional and alternative options for treatment of UI was also evaluated. The GDG made 52 recommendations on diagnosis and treatment for couples with UI. The GDG formulated 40 evidence-based recommendations-of which 29 were formulated as strong recommendations and 11 as weak-10 good practice points and two research only recommendations. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, one by moderate-quality evidence, nine by low-quality evidence, and 31 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in UI, a list of research recommendations was provided. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Most additional diagnostic tests and interventions in couples with UI have not been subjected to robust evaluation. For a large proportion of these tests and treatments, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required, and the results of future studies may result in the current recommendations being revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in the care of couples with UI, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. The full guideline and a patient leaflet are available in www.eshre.eu/guideline/UI. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The guideline was developed by ESHRE, who funded the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline in collaboration with the Monash University led Australian NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CREWHIRL). The guideline group members did not receive any financial incentives; all work was provided voluntarily. D.R. reports honoraria from IBSA and Novo Nordisk. B.A. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter, Organon and Intas Pharma; is part of the advisory board for Organon Turkey and president of the Turkish Society of Reproductive Medicine. S.B. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Organon, Ferring, the Ostetric and Gynaecological Society of Singapore and the Taiwanese Society for Reproductive Medicine; editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press; is part of the METAFOR and CAPE trials data monitoring committee. E.B. reports research grants from Roche diagnostics, Gedeon Richter and IBSA; speaker's fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Gedeon Richter, IBSA; E.B. is also a part of an Advisory Board of Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Merck, Abbott and Gedeon Richter. M.M. reports consulting fees from Mojo Fertility Ltd. R.J.N. reports research grant from Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); consulting fees from Flinders Fertility Adelaide, VinMec Hospital Hanoi Vietnam; speaker's fees from Merck Australia, Cadilla Pharma India, Ferring Australia; chair clinical advisory committee Westmead Fertility and research institute MyDuc Hospital Vietnam. T.P. is a part of the Research Council of Finland and reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Novo Nordics and Sigrid Juselius foundation; consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics and organon; speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter, Roche, Exeltis, Organon, Ferring and Korento patient organization; is a part of NFOG, AE-PCOS society and several Finnish associations. S.S.R. reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Organon, Theramex; consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD and Organon; speaker's fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD/Organon, Besins, Theramex, Gedeon Richter; travel support from Gedeon Richter; S.S.R. is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board of TTRANSPORT and deputy of the ESHRE Special Interest Group on Safety and Quality in ART; stock or stock options from IVI Lisboa, Clínica de Reprodução assistida Lda; equipment/medical writing/gifts from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. S.K.S. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Pharmasure. HRV reports consulting and travel fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The other authors have nothing to disclose. DISCLAIMER: This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

The effectiveness of immediate versus delayed tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in women with unexplained infertility (H2Oil-timing study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography leads to significantly more live births as compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography. However, it is unknown whether incorporating tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in the initial fertility work-up results to a reduced time to conception leading to live birth when compared to delayed tubal flushing that is performed six months after the initial fertility work-up. We also aim to evaluate the effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography versus no tubal flushing in the first six months of the study. METHODS: This study will be an investigator-initiated, open-label, international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a planned economic analysis alongside the study. Infertile women between 18 and 39 years of age, who have an ovulatory cycle, who are at low risk for tubal pathology and have been advised expectant management for at least six months (based on the Hunault prediction score) will be included in this study. Eligible women will be randomly allocated (1:1) to immediate tubal flushing (intervention) versus delayed tubal flushing (control group) by using web-based block randomization stratified per study center. The primary outcome is time to conception leading to live birth with conception within twelve months after randomization. We assess the cumulative conception rate at six and twelve months as two co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate, miscarriage rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, number of complications, procedural pain score and cost-effectiveness. To demonstrate or refute a shorter time to pregnancy of three months with a power of 90%, a sample size of 554 women is calculated. DISCUSSION: The H2Oil-timing study will provide insight into whether tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography should be incorporated in the initial fertility work-up in women with unexplained infertility as a therapeutic procedure. If this multicenter RCT shows that tubal flushing with oil-based contrast incorporated in the initial fertility work-up reduces time to conception and is a cost-effective strategy, the results may lead to adjustments of (inter)national guidelines and change clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was retrospectively registered in International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Main ID: EUCTR2018-004153-24-NL).

Can serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) support the decision to refer a patient with an ovarian mass to an oncology hospital?

INTRODUCTION: The value of serum human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) in guiding referral decisions in patients with an ovarian mass remains unclear, because the majority of studies investigating HE4 were performed in oncology hospitals. However, the decision to refer is made at general hospitals with a low ovarian cancer prevalence. We assessed accuracies of HE4 in differentiating benign or borderline from malignant tumors in patients presenting with an ovarian mass at general hospitals. METHOD: Patients with an ovarian mass were prospectively included between 2017 and 2021 in nine general hospitals. HE4 and CA125 were preoperatively measured and the risk of malignancy index (RMI) was calculated. Histological diagnosis was the reference standard. RESULTS: We included 316 patients, of whom 195 had a benign, 39 had a borderline and 82 had a malignant ovarian mass. HE4 had the highest AUC of 0.80 (95%CI 0.74-0.86), followed by RMI (0.71, 95%CI 0.64-0.78) and CA125 (0.69, 95%CI 0.62-0.75). Clinical setting significantly influenced biomarker performances. Applying age-dependent cut-off values for HE4 resulted in a better performance than one cut-off. Addition of HE4 to RMI resulted in a 32% decrease of unnecessary referred patients, while the number of correctly referred patients remained the same. CONCLUSION: HE4 is superior to RMI in predicting malignancy in patients with an ovarian mass from general hospitals. The addition of HE4 to the RMI improved HE4 alone. Although, there is still room for improvement, HE4 can guide referral decisions in patients with an ovarian mass to an oncology hospital.

Transfer of fresh or frozen embryos: a randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is IVF with frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (freeze-all strategy) more effective than IVF with fresh and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (conventional strategy)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The freeze-all strategy was inferior to the conventional strategy in terms of cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per woman. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IVF without transfer of fresh embryos, thus with frozen-thawed embryo transfer only (freeze-all strategy), is increasingly being used in clinical practice because of a presumed benefit. It is still unknown whether this new IVF strategy increases IVF efficacy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A single-centre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled superiority trial was conducted. The trial was conducted between January 2013 and July 2015 in the Netherlands. The intervention was one IVF cycle with frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer(s) versus one IVF cycle with fresh and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer(s). The primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy resulting from one IVF cycle within 12 months after randomisation. Couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the freeze-all strategy or the conventional strategy with an online randomisation programme just before the start of down-regulation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were subfertile couples with any indication for IVF undergoing their first IVF cycle, with a female age between 18 and 43 years. Differences in cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates were expressed as relative risks (RR) with 95% CI. All outcomes were analysed following the intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Two-hundred-and-five couples were randomly assigned to the freeze-all strategy (n = 102) or to the conventional strategy (n = 102). The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per woman was significantly lower in women allocated to the freeze-all strategy (19/102 (19%)) compared to women allocated to the conventional strategy (32/102 (31%); RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.36-0.98). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: As this was a single-centre study, we were unable to study differences in study protocols and clinic performance. This, and the limited sample size, should make one cautious in using the results as the basis for definitive policy. All patients undergoing IVF, including those with a poor prognosis, were included; therefore, the outcome could differ in women with a good prognosis of IVF treatment success. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results indicate that there might be no benefit of a freeze-all strategy in terms of cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates. The efficacy of the freeze-all strategy in subgroups of patients, different stages of embryo development, and different freezing protocols needs to be further established and balanced against potential benefits and harms for mothers and children. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW grant 171101007). S.M., F.M. and M.v.W. stated they are authors of the Cochrane review 'Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction'. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register, NTR3187. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 9 December 2011. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 8 January 2013.

Septum resection in women with a septate uterus: a cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does septum resection improve reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women with a septate uterus, septum resection does not increase live birth rate nor does it decrease the rates of pregnancy loss or preterm birth, compared with expectant management. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The septate uterus is the most common uterine anomaly with an estimated prevalence of 0.2-2.3% in women of reproductive age, depending on the classification system. The definition of the septate uterus has been a long-lasting and ongoing subject of debate, and currently two classification systems are used worldwide. Women with a septate uterus may be at increased risk of subfertility, pregnancy loss, preterm birth and foetal malpresentation. Based on low quality evidence, current guidelines recommend removal of the intrauterine septum or, more cautiously, state that the procedure should be evaluated in future studies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an international multicentre cohort study in which we identified women mainly retrospectively by searching in electronic patient files, medical records and databases within the time frame of January 2000 until August 2018. Searching of the databases, files and records took place between January 2016 and July 2018. By doing so, we collected data on 257 women with a septate uterus in 21 centres in the Netherlands, USA and UK. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included women with a septate uterus, defined by the treating physician, according to the classification system at that time. The women were ascertained among those with a history of subfertility, pregnancy loss, preterm birth or foetal malpresentation or during a routine diagnostic procedure. Allocation to septum resection or expectant management was dependent on the reproductive history and severity of the disease. We excluded women who did not have a wish to conceive at time of diagnosis. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included pregnancy loss, preterm birth and foetal malpresentation. All conceptions during follow-up were registered but for the comparative analyses, only the first live birth or ongoing pregnancy was included. To evaluate differences in live birth and ongoing pregnancy, we used Cox proportional regression to calculate hazard rates (HRs) and 95% CI. To evaluate differences in pregnancy loss, preterm birth and foetal malpresentation, we used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% CI. We adjusted all reproductive outcomes for possible confounders. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 257 women were included in the cohort. Of these, 151 women underwent a septum resection and 106 women had expectant management. The median follow-up time was 46 months. During this time, live birth occurred in 80 women following a septum resection (53.0%) compared to 76 women following expectant management (71.7%) (HR 0.71 95% CI 0.49-1.02) and ongoing pregnancy occurred in 89 women who underwent septum resection (58.9%), compared to 80 women who had expectant management (75.5%) (HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.52-1.06)). Pregnancy loss occurred in 51 women who underwent septum resection (46.8%) versus 31 women who had expectant management (34.4%) (OR 1.58 (0.81-3.09)), while preterm birth occurred in 26 women who underwent septum resection (29.2%) versus 13 women who had expectant management (16.7%) (OR 1.26 (95% CI 0.52-3.04)) and foetal malpresentation occurred in 17 women who underwent septum resection (19.1%) versus 27 women who had expectant management (34.6%) (OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.24-1.33)). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our retrospective study has a less robust design compared with a randomized controlled trial. Over the years, the ideas about the definition of the septate uterus has changed, but since the 257 women with a septate uterus included in this study had been diagnosed by their treating physician according to the leading classification system at that time, the data of this study reflect the daily practice of recent decades. Despite correcting for the most relevant patient characteristics, our estimates might not be free of residual confounding. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results suggest that septum resection, a procedure that is widely offered and associated with financial costs for society, healthcare systems or individuals, does not lead to improved reproductive outcomes compared to expectant management for women with a septate uterus. The results of this study need to be confirmed in randomized clinical trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): A travel for JFWR to Chicago was supported by the Jo Kolk Studyfund. Otherwise, no specific funding was received for this study. The Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre, Groningen, received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring Pharmaceutical Company unrelated to the present study. BWM reports grants from NHMRC, personal fees from ObsEva, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Guerbet, other payment from Guerbet and grants from Merck, outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conficts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Treatment effect of oil-based contrast is related to experienced pain at HSG: a post-hoc analysis of the randomised H2Oil study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does pain or volume of used contrast medium impact the effectiveness of oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG)? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women who report moderate to severe pain during HSG, the use of oil-based contrast resulted in more ongoing pregnancies compared to the use of water-based contrast, whereas in women who reported mild or no pain, no difference in ongoing pregnancies was found. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, the use of oil-based contrast results in more ongoing pregnancies within 6 months as compared to the use of water-based contrast. However, the underlying mechanism of this fertility-enhancing effect remains unclear. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a post-hoc analysis of the H2Oil study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the therapeutic effect of oil- and water-based contrast at HSG. Here, we evaluated the impact of pain experienced at HSG and volume of used contrast media during HSG on ongoing pregnancy. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In a subset of 400 participating women, pain during HSG by means of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range: 0.0-10.0 cm) was reported, while in 512 women, we registered the volume of used contrast (in millilitres). We used logistic regression analyses to assess whether pain and volume of used contrast media modified the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy rates. Data were analysed according to intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 400 women in whom pain scores were reported, the overall median pain score was 5.0 (Interquartile range (IQR) 3.0-6.8) (oil group (n = 199) 4.8 (IQR 3.0-6.4); water group (n = 201) 5.0 (IQR 3.0-6.7); P-value 0.28). There was a significant interaction between pain (VAS ≤5 versus VAS ≥6) and the primary outcome ongoing pregnancy (P-value 0.047). In women experiencing pain (VAS ≥6), HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in better 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates compared to HSG with water-based contrast (49.4% versus 29.6%; RR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), while in women with a pain score ≤5, 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates were not significantly different between the use of oil- (28.8%) versus water-based contrast (29.2%) (RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66-1.5). In the 512 women in whom we recorded contrast, median volume was 9.0 ml (IQR 5.7-15.0) in the oil group versus 8.0 ml (IQR 5.9-13.0) in the water group, respectively (P-value 0.72). Volume of used contrast was not found to modify the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy (P-value for interaction 0.23). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a post-hoc analysis that should be considered as hypothesis generating. The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women, younger than 39 years of age and with a low risk for tubal pathology. Therefore, our results should not be generalised to infertile women who do not share these features. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The underlying mechanism of the fertility-enhancing effect induced by HSG with the use of oil-based contrast remains unclear. However, these findings suggest a possible mechanistic pathway, that is increasing intrauterine pressure occurring prior to dislodging pregnancy hindering debris or mucus plugs from the proximal part of otherwise normal fallopian tubes. This information might help in the search of the underlying fertility-enhancing mechanism found by using oil-based contrast during HSG. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports consultancy for Guerbet. H.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. C.B.L. reports speakers' fees from Ferring and research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research grants from Merck KGaA and Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflict of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The H2Oil study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR 3270). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 1 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 3 February 2012.

Follicle stimulating hormone versus clomiphene citrate in intrauterine insemination for unexplained subfertility: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is FSH or clomiphene citrate (CC) the most effective stimulation regimen in terms of ongoing pregnancies in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria as a measure to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies? SUMMARY ANSWER: In IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, ovarian stimulation with FSH is not superior to CC in terms of the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate, and yields a similar, low multiple pregnancy rate. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: FSH has been shown to result in higher pregnancy rates compared to CC, but at the cost of high multiple pregnancy rates. To reduce the risk of multiple pregnancy, new ovarian stimulation regimens have been suggested, these include strict cancellation criteria to limit the number of dominant follicles per cycle i.e. withholding insemination when more than three dominant follicles develop. With such a strategy, it is unclear whether the ovarian stimulation should be done with FSH or with CC. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an open-label multicenter randomized superiority controlled trial in the Netherlands (NTR 4057). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We randomized couples diagnosed with unexplained subfertility and scheduled for a maximum of four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation with 75 IU FSH or 100 mg CC. Cycles were cancelled when more then three dominant follicles developed. The primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate. Multiple pregnancy was a secondary outcome. We analysed the data on intention to treat basis. We calculated relative risks and absolute risk difference with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between July 2013 and March 2016, we allocated 369 women to ovarian stimulation with FSH and 369 women to ovarian stimulation with CC. A total of 113 women (31%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and 97 women (26%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.93-1.47, ARD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.11). Five women (1.4%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and eight women (2.2%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.21-1.89, ARD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We were not able to blind this study due to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We revealed that adherence to strict cancellation criteria is a successful solution to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies in IUI. To decide whether ovarian stimulation with FSH or with CC should be the regimen of choice, costs and patients' preferences should be taken into account. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Prof. Dr B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Nederlands Trial Register NTR4057. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 1 July 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: The first patient was randomized at 27 August 2013.

Implementing targeted expectant management in fertility care using prognostic modelling: a cluster randomized trial with a multifaceted strategy.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on improving the adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management for couples with unexplained infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: The multifaceted implementation strategy did not significantly increase adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management compared to care as usual. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) with or without ovarian hyperstimulation has no beneficial effect compared to no treatment for 6 months after the fertility work-up for couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis of natural conception. Therefore, various professionals and policy makers have advocated the use of prognostic profiles and expectant management in guideline recommendations. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cluster randomized controlled trial in 25 clinics in the Netherlands was conducted between March 2013 and May 2014. Clinics were randomized between the implementation strategy (intervention, n = 13) and care as usual (control, n = 12). The effect of the implementation strategy was evaluated by comparing baseline and effect measurement data. Data collection was retrospective and obtained from medical record research and a patient questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 544 couples were included at baseline and 485 at the effect measurement (247 intervention group/238 control group). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Guideline adherence increased from 49 to 69% (OR 2.66; 95% CI 1.45-4.89) in the intervention group, and from 49 to 61% (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.38-3.00) in the control group. Multilevel analysis with case-mix adjustment showed that the difference of 8% was not statistically significant (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.67-2.59). The ongoing pregnancy rate within six months after fertility work-up did not significantly differ between intervention and control group (25% versus 27%: OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.40-1.27). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: There is a possible selection bias, couples included in the study had a higher socio-economic status than non-responders. How this affects guideline adherence is unclear. Furthermore, when powering for this study we did not take into account the unexpected improvement of adherence in the control group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Generalization of our results to other countries with recommendations on expectant management might be questionable because barriers for expectant management can be very different in other countries. Furthermore, due to a large variation in improved adherence rate in the intervention group it will be interesting to further analyse the process of implementation in each clinic with a process evaluation on professionals and couples' exposure to and experiences with the strategy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 171203005). No competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch trial Register, www.trialregister.nl NTR3405. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 April 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 July 2012.

Patient preference for a long-acting recombinant FSH product in ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF: a discrete choice experiment.

STUDY QUESTION: What factors or attributes of a long-acting recombinant FSH (rFSH) or daily-administrated rFSH influence women's preferences IVF? SUMMARY ANSWER: Patients' preferences for rFSH products are primary influenced by the attribute 'number of injections', but a low 'number of injections' is exchanged for a high 'number of injections' at a 6.2% decrease in 'risk of cycle cancellation due to low response' and at a 4.5% decrease in 'chance of OHSS'. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Injections of long-acting rFSH have been claimed to be preferred over daily-administrated rFSH injections, but patient preference studies to underpin this assumption have not been performed. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was created to assess women's preference for long-acting or daily-administrated rFSH under varying attributes of efficiency, safety and burden. The selected attributes were the 'total number of injections', 'chance of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)' and the 'risk of cycle cancellation due to low response'. Questionnaires were handed out during information gathering sessions in one academic hospital and two teaching hospitals in The Netherlands between April 2011 and April 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women at the start of their first IVF treatment were asked to participate in this patient preference study. Participation was voluntary. We analysed the data by using mixed logit models to estimate the utility of each attribute. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Questionnaires (n = 125) were handed out with a response rate of 77% (97/125). Four respondents did not complete the questionnaire. Hence, there were 93 questionnaires available for analysis. All attributes significantly influenced women's preference. Overall, the lower 'number of injections' was preferred above the higher 'number of injections' (mean coefficient 1.25; P < 0.001), while an increase of 1% in 'chance of OHSS' or 5% 'risk of cycle cancellation due to low response' was non-preferred (mean coefficients -0.31 and -0.24, respectively, P < 0.01). The majority of respondents was willing to trade-off a lower 'number of injections' for a higher 'number of injections' when gaining a 6.2% reduction in 'cycle cancellation due to low response', or a 4.5% reduction in 'chance of OHSS'. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The generalizability of this DCE is limited in time-span. Women may choose differently when they have previous experience with long-acting rFSH, or when they have to pay for the medication, hospital visits and treatments themselves. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this DCE helps us to understand the trade-off women make in their preference for a long-acting rFSH product or a daily-administrated rFSH product in IVF and may support doctors when counselling patients.

Cost-effectiveness of salpingotomy and salpingectomy in women with tubal pregnancy (a randomized controlled trial).

STUDY QUESTION: Is salpingotomy cost effective compared with salpingectomy in women with tubal pregnancy and a healthy contralateral tube? SUMMARY ANSWER: Salpingotomy is not cost effective over salpingectomy as a surgical procedure for tubal pregnancy, as its costs are higher without a better ongoing pregnancy rate while risks of persistent trophoblast are higher. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Women with a tubal pregnancy treated by salpingotomy or salpingectomy in the presence of a healthy contralateral tube have comparable ongoing pregnancy rates by natural conception. Salpingotomy bears the risk of persistent trophoblast necessitating additional medical or surgical treatment. Repeat ectopic pregnancy occurs slightly more often after salpingotomy compared with salpingectomy. Both consequences imply potentially higher costs after salpingotomy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation of salpingotomy compared with salpingectomy in an international multicentre randomized controlled trial in women with a tubal pregnancy and a healthy contralateral tube. Between 24 September 2004 and 29 November 2011, women were allocated to salpingotomy (n = 215) or salpingectomy (n = 231). Fertility follow-up was done up to 36 months post-operatively. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective. We compared the direct medical costs of salpingotomy and salpingectomy until an ongoing pregnancy occurred by natural conception within a time horizon of 36 months. Direct medical costs included the surgical treatment of the initial tubal pregnancy, readmissions including reinterventions, treatment for persistent trophoblast and interventions for repeat ectopic pregnancy. The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Mean direct medical costs per woman in the salpingotomy group and in the salpingectomy group were €3319 versus €2958, respectively, with a mean difference of €361 (95% confidence interval €217 to €515). Salpingotomy resulted in a marginally higher ongoing pregnancy rate by natural conception compared with salpingectomy leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio €40 982 (95% confidence interval -€130 319 to €145 491) per ongoing pregnancy. Since salpingotomy resulted in more additional treatments for persistent trophoblast and interventions for repeat ectopic pregnancy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not informative. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Costs of any subsequent IVF cycles were not included in this analysis. The analysis was limited to the perspective of the hospital. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: However, a small treatment benefit of salpingotomy might be enough to cover the costs of subsequent IVF. This uncertainty should be incorporated in shared decision-making. Whether salpingotomy should be offered depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional child. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Region Västra Götaland Health & Medical Care Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN37002267.

Is IVF-served two different ways-more cost-effective than IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?. SUMMARY ANSWER: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were €7187 for IVF-SET, €8206 for IVF-MNC and €5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences €2117; 95% CI: €1544-€2657 and €3136, 95% CI: €2519-€3754, respectively).The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was €43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, (120620027) and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Netherlands' association of health care insurers (09-003). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Methotrexate or expectant management in women with an ectopic pregnancy or pregnancy of unknown location and low serum hCG concentrations? A randomized comparison.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the treatment success rate of systemic methotrexate (MTX) compared with expectant management in women with an ectopic pregnancy or a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) with low and plateauing serum hCG concentrations? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women with an ectopic pregnancy or a PUL and low and plateauing serum hCG concentrations, expectant management is an alternative to medical treatment with single-dose systemic MTX. WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: MTX is often used in asymptomatic women with an ectopic pregnancy or a PUL with low and plateauing serum hCG concentrations. These pregnancies may be self-limiting and watchful waiting is suggested as an alternative, but evidence from RCTs is lacking. The results of this RCT show that expectant management is an alternative to treatment with systemic MTX in a single-dose regimen in these women. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A multicentre RCT women were assigned to systemic MTX (single dose) treatment or expectant management, using a web-based randomization program, block randomization with stratification for hospital and serum hCG concentration (<1000 versus 1000-2000 IU/l). The primary outcome measure was an uneventful decline of serum hCG to an undetectable level (<2 IU/l) by the initial intervention strategy. Secondary outcome measures included additional treatment, side effects and serum hCG clearance time. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS: From April 2007 to January 2012, we performed a multicentre study in The Netherlands. All haemodynamically stable women >18 years old with both an ectopic pregnancy visible on transvaginal sonography and a plateauing serum hCG concentration <1500 IU/l or with a PUL and a plateauing serum hCG concentration <2000 IU/l were eligible for the trial. MAIN RESULTS: We included 73 women of whom 41 were allocated to single-dose MTX and 32 to expectant management. There was no difference in primary treatment success rate of single-dose MTX versus expectant management, 31/41 (76%) and 19/32 (59%), respectively [relative risk (RR) 1.3 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-1.8]. In nine women (22%), additional MTX injections were needed, compared with nine women (28%) in whom systemic MTX was administered after initial expectant management (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.4-1.7). One woman (2%) from the MTX group underwent surgery compared with four women (13%) in the expectant management group (RR 0.2; 95% CI 0.02-1.7), all after experiencing abdominal pain within the first week of follow-up. In the MTX group, nine women reported side effects versus none in the expectant management group. No serious adverse events were reported. Single-dose systemic MTX does not have a larger treatment effect compared with expectant management in women with an ectopic pregnancy or a PUL and low and plateauing serum hCG concentrations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Sixty percent of women after expectant management had an uneventful clinical course with steadily declining serum hCG levels without any intervention, which means that MTX, a potentially harmful drug, can be withheld in these women. BIAS, LIMITATION AND GENERALISABILITY: A limitation of this RCT is that it was an open (not placebo controlled) trial. Nevertheless, introduction of bias was probably limited by the strict criteria to be fulfilled for treatment with MTX. STUDY FUNDING: This trial is supported by a grant of the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw Clinical fellow grant 90700154). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 48210491.

Cost-effectiveness of tubal patency tests.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines are not in agreement on the most effective diagnostic scenario for tubal patency testing; therefore, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of invasive tubal testing in subfertile couples compared with no testing and treatment. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Decision analytic framework. POPULATION: Computer-simulated cohort of subfertile women. METHODS: We evaluated six scenarios: (1) no tests and no treatment; (2) immediate treatment without tubal testing; (3) delayed treatment without tubal testing; (4) hysterosalpingogram (HSG), followed by immediate or delayed treatment, according to diagnosis (tailored treatment); (5) HSG and a diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in case HSG does not prove tubal patency, followed by tailored treatment; and (6) DL followed by tailored treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Expected cumulative live births after 3 years. Secondary outcomes were cost per couple and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: For a 30-year-old woman with otherwise unexplained subfertility for 12 months, 3-year cumulative live birth rates were 51.8, 78.1, 78.4, 78.4, 78.6 and 78.4%, and costs per couple were €0, €6968, €5063, €5410, €5405 and €6163 for scenarios 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with scenario 1 (reference strategy), were €26,541, €19,046, €20,372, €20,150 and €23,184 for scenarios 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed the model to be robust over a wide range of values for the variables. CONCLUSIONS: The most cost-effective scenario is to perform no diagnostic tubal tests and to delay in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for at least 12 months for women younger than 38 years old, and to perform no tubal tests and start immediate IVF treatment from the age of 39 years. If an invasive diagnostic test is planned, HSG followed by tailored treatment, or a DL if HSG shows no tubal patency, is more cost-effective than DL.

Selective karyotyping in recurrent miscarriage: are recommended guidelines adopted in daily clinical practice?

BACKGROUND: Couples with recurrent miscarriage (RM) have an increased risk of one of the partners carrying a structural chromosome abnormality. On the basis of four independent risk factors, an evidence-based model was developed, which allows limiting karyotyping to high-risk couples. The aim of this study was to assess the level of adoption of selective karyotyping, its clinical consequences and the factors at the patient and hospital level that determine adoption. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed in nine Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, the Netherlands, in 2006. Selective karyotyping was defined as offering karyotyping to high-risk couples and refraining from karyotyping in low-risk couples. Data were collected for risk factors as described in the model for selective karyotyping, cytogenetic results as a measure for clinical consequences, and information about determinants and costs. RESULTS: A total of 530 couples were included; 252 (48%) high-risk couples and 278 (52%) low-risk couples. Among the high-risk couples, 186 (74%) were offered karyotyping. Although not advised, karyotyping was still performed in 198 (71%) low-risk couples. Overall, selective karyotyping was offered to 50% of the couples. The main determinants for adoption of the model were maternal age, obstetric history, treatment by specialists in RM and the number of patients per centre. If selective karyotyping was adopted adequately, a potential reduction of 34% of all karyotyping tests performed is possible. CONCLUSION: Selective karyotyping is applied in only half of the couples with RM in daily practice. Implementation of selective karyotyping should be a topic of future research.

Timing oocyte collection in GnRH agonists down-regulated IVF and ICSI cycles: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The evidence underpinning the timing of an oocyte collection in IVF or ICSI is limited. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the follicle diameter size of the dominant follicle on ongoing pregnancy rates. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial, including women aged between 18 and 43 years who were scheduled for GnRH agonist down-regulated IVF/ICSI treatment in four assisted conception units. Women were randomized between timing oocyte collection when the leading follicle had a diameter of 22 mm or when the leading follicle had a diameter of 18 mm. The primary end-point was ongoing pregnancy, defined as a viable pregnancy at 12 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: The trial had major problems with recruiting patients and after the planned 2 years of recruiting only half of the aimed 400 inclusions were obtained. We allocated 97 women to the 22-mm group and 93 women to the 18-mm group. In the 22-mm group more women reached an ongoing pregnancy (37 of 97 women, 38%) compared with the 18-mm group (22 of 93 women, 24%) resulting in a relative risk of 1.6 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-2.5]. In a logistic regression analysis, the timing of oocyte collection, adjusted for female age, IVF/ICSI and centre, was still associated with ongoing pregnancy, although the association was no longer statistically significant (OR: 2.0; 95% CI: 0.96-4.2) CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that delaying the timing of oocyte collection in IVF or ICSI results in better ongoing pregnancy rates, however, larger studies have to be performed to prove or refute these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN24724622.

The capacity of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy to predict natural conception.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy has been claimed to be superior to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in predicting fertility. Whether this conclusion is applicable to a general subfertile population can be questioned as data in support of this claim were collected in third line centres. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic capacity of HSG and laparoscopy in a general subfertile population. METHODS: In 38 centres, we prospectively studied a cohort of patients referred for subfertility between 2002 and 2004, who underwent HSG and/or laparoscopy as part of their subfertility work-up. Follow-up started immediately after tubal testing and ended 12 months thereafter. Time to pregnancy was censored at the of date last contact, when the woman was not pregnant or at the start of treatment. Kaplan-Meier curves for the occurrence of spontaneous intrauterine pregnancy were constructed for patients without tubal pathology, for those with unilateral tubal pathology and for patients with bilateral tubal pathology at HSG or laparoscopy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to calculate fecundity rate ratios (FRRs) to express associations between tubal pathology and the occurrence of an intrauterine pregnancy. RESULTS: Of the 3301 included patients, 2043 underwent HSG only, 747 underwent diagnostic laparoscopy only and 511 underwent both. At HSG, 322 (13%) patients showed unilateral tubal pathology and 135 (5%) showed bilateral tubal pathology. At laparoscopy, 167 (13%) showed unilateral tubal pathology and 215 (17%) showed bilateral tubal pathology. Multivariable analysis resulted in FRRs of 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59-1.1] for unilateral, and 0.28 (95% CI: 0.13-0.59) for bilateral, tubal pathology at HSG. The FRRs at laparoscopy were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.47-1.52) for unilateral, and 0.24 (95% CI: 0.11-0.54) for bilateral, tubal pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with unilateral tubal pathology at HSG and laparoscopy had a moderate reduction in pregnancy chances, whereas those with bilateral tubal pathology at HSG and laparoscopy had a severe reduction in pregnancy chances. This reduction was similar for HSG and laparoscopy, suggesting that HSG and laparoscopy have a comparable predictive capacity for natural conception.

Guideline adherence in ectopic pregnancy management.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines have been issued for ectopic pregnancy (EP), covering both diagnostic and therapeutic management. In general, guidelines aim to reduce practice variation and to improve quality of care. To assess the guideline adherence in the management of EP, we developed guideline-based quality indicators and measured patient care in various hospitals. METHODS: A panel of experts and clinicians developed quality indicators based on recommendations from the Dutch guideline on EP management, using the systematic RAND-modified Delphi method. With these indicators, patient care was assessed in six Dutch hospitals between January 2003 and December 2005. For each quality indicator, a ratio for guideline adherence was calculated. Overall adherence was reported, as well as adherence per hospital type, i.e. academic, teaching and non-teaching hospitals. RESULTS: Out of 30 guideline-based recommendations, 12 quality indicators were selected covering procedural, structural and outcome aspects of care. For 317 women surgically treated for EP, these aspects were assessed. Overall adherence to the guideline was 75%. The highest adherence (98%) was observed for performing transvaginal sonography during the diagnostic workup. The lowest adherence (21%) was observed for performing salpingotomy in case of contra-lateral tubal pathology. Wide variance in adherence (0-100%) existed between academic, teaching and non-teaching hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The overall guideline adherence was reasonable, with ample room for improvement in various aspects of care. Further research should focus on the barriers for guideline dissemination and adherence, to further improve the management of EP.

Uterine bathing with sonography gel prior to IVF/ICSI-treatment in patients with endometriosis, a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effect of uterine bathing with sonography gel prior to IVF/ICSI-treatment on live birth rates after fresh embryo transfer in patients with endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: After formal interim analysis and premature ending of the trial, no significant difference between uterine bathing using a pharmacologically neutral sonography gel compared to a sham procedure on live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer in endometriosis patients (26.7% vs. 15.4%, relative risk (RR) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-3.72; P-value 0.147) could be found, although the trial was underpowered to draw definite conclusions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Impaired implantation receptivity contributes to reduced clinical pregnancy rates after IVF/ICSI-treatment in endometriosis patients. Previous studies have suggested a favourable effect of tubal flushing with Lipiodol® on natural conceptions. This benefit might also be explained by enhancing implantation through endometrial immunomodulation. Although recent studies showed no beneficial effect of endometrial scratching, the effect of mechanical stress by intrauterine infusion on the endometrium in endometriosis patients undergoing IVF/ICSI-treatment has not been investigated yet. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We performed a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled trial in which women were randomly allocated to either a Gel Infusion Sonography (GIS, intervention group) or a sham procedure (control group) prior to IVF/ICSI-treatment. Since recruitment was slow and completion of the study was considered unfeasible, the study was halted after inclusion of 112 of the planned 184 women. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: We included infertile women with surgically confirmed endometriosis ASRM stage I-IV undergoing IVF/ICSI-treatment. After informed consent, women were randomised to GIS with intrauterine instillation of ExEm-gel® or sonography with gel into the vagina (sham). This was performed in the cycle preceding the embryo transfer, on the day GnRH analogue treatment was started. The primary endpoint was live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer. Analysis was performed by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between July 2014 to September 2018, we randomly allocated 112 women to GIS (n = 60) or sham procedure (n = 52). The live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer was 16/60 (26.7%) after GIS versus 8/52 (15.4%) after the sham (RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.81-3.72; P-value 0.147). Ongoing pregnancy rate was 16/60 (26.7%) after GIS versus 9/52 (17.3%) in the controls (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.74-3.18). Miscarriage occurred in 1/60 (1.7%) after GIS versus 5/52 (9.6%) in the controls (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02-1.44) women. Uterine bathing resulted in a higher pain score compared with a sham procedure (visual analogue scale score 2.7 [1.3-3.5] vs. 1.0 [0.0-2.0], P < 0.001). There were two adverse events after GIS compared with none after sham procedures. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was terminated prematurely due to slow recruitment and trial fatigue. Therefore, the trial is underpowered to draw definite conclusions regarding the effect of uterine bathing with sonography gel on live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer in endometriosis patients undergoing IVF/ICSI-treatment. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We could not demonstrate a favourable effect of uterine bathing procedures with sonography gel prior to IVF/ICSI-treatment in patients with endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Investigator initiated study. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm FOAM® kits free of charge, they were not involved in the study design, data management, statistical analyses and/or manuscript preparation, etc. C.B.L. reports receiving grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. is Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction. V.M. reports grants and other from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. B.W.M. reports grants from NHMRC (GNT1176437), personal fees from ObsEva, Merck and Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomix, outside the submitted work. N.P.J. reports research funding from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy for Vifor Pharma, Guerbet, Myovant Sciences and Roche Diagnostics, outside the submitted work. K.D. reports personal fees from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not report any conflicts of interest. No financial support was provided. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL4025 (NTR4198). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 7 October 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 22 July 2014.