In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a treatment for unexplained subfertility but is invasive, expensive, and associated with risks. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF versus expectant management, unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI), and IUI with ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins, clomiphene citrate (CC), or letrozole in improving pregnancy outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched following databases from inception to November 2021, with no language restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL. We searched reference lists of articles and conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness of IVF for unexplained subfertility with expectant management, unstimulated IUI, and stimulated IUI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: IVF versus expectant management (two RCTs) We are uncertain whether IVF improves live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 22.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37; 1 RCT; 51 women; very low-quality evidence; OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 9.8; 2 RCTs; 86 women; I2 = 80%; very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported. Assuming 4% LBR and 12% CPR with expectant management, these would be 8.8% to 9% and 13% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus unstimulated IUI (two RCTs) IVF may improve LBR compared to unstimulated IUI (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.12; 2 RCTs; 156 women; I2 = 60%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference between IVF and IUI for multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.04 to 27.29; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence) and miscarriage rate (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.14 to 21.25; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence). No study reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming 16% LBR, 3% MPR, and 6% miscarriage rate with unstimulated IUI, these outcomes would be 18.5% to 49%, 0.1% to 46%, and 0.9% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus IUI + ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (6 RCTs), CC (1 RCT), or letrozole (no RCTs) Stratified analysis was based on pretreatment status. Treatment-naive women There may be little or no difference in LBR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.92; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 54%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.55; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 42% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 26% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), LBR would be 39% to 54% and 24% to 51% with IVF. Assuming 15% LBR with IUI + CC, LBR would be 15% to 54% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in CPR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.59; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 4.59, 95% CI 1.86 to 11.35; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.51 to 8.49; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 48% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 17% with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), CPR would be 44% to 60% and 28% to 70% with IVF. Assuming 21% CPR with IUI + CC, CPR would be 29% to 69% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.77; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.41; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in OHSS between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 6.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 134.59; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference in OHSS with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.16; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.57; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in miscarriage rate between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.04; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.05; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). In women pretreated with IUI + CC IVF may improve LBR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.32 to 6.57; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 22% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins, LBR would be 39% to 65% with IVF. IVF may improve CPR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 14.13, 95% CI 7.57 to 26.38; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 30% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins, CPR would be 76% to 92% with IVF. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: IVF may improve LBR over unstimulated IUI. Data should be interpreted with caution as overall evidence quality was low.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs (3703 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

Effect of delayed cord clamping on stem cell transfusion and hematological parameters in preterm infants with placental insufficiency: a pilot randomized trial.

The feasibility of delayed cord clamping (DCC) in preterm infants with placental insufficiency (PI) is questionable. We aimed to study the effect of DCC on stem cell transfusion, hematological parameters, and clinical outcomes in preterm infants born to mothers with PI. Preterm infants, < 34 weeks' gestation, born to mothers with PI were randomized based on the timing of umbilical cord clamping into delayed clamping for 60 s (DCC group) or immediate cord clamping (ICC group) groups at time of birth. CD34 percentage as a marker of stem cell transfusion, early and late-onset anemia, hypothermia, hypotension, polycythemia, hyperbilirubinemia, duration of oxygen therapy, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intra-ventricular hemorrhage, necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, mortality, and length of hospital stay were compared between studied groups. We found that peripheral blood CD34 percentage was significantly higher in DCC compared with that in the ICC group (median (IQR) of 0.5 (0.40-0.7) versus 0.35 (0.20-0.5), p = 0.004). Infants in the DCC group had significantly lower episodes of anemia of prematurity at 2 months, red blood cell transfusion, and shorter duration of oxygen therapy compared with those in the ICC group.Conclusion: In conclusion, DCC compared with ICC increased stem cell transfusion and decreased early- and late-onset anemia in preterm infants with placental insufficiency.Trial registration: NCT03731546 www.clinicaltrials.gov What is Known: • Delayed cord clamping has been recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics as a standard of care practice during delivery of preterm infants. • The feasibility of DCC in preterm infants with placental insufficiency (PI) is uncertain. What is New: • This randomized controlled trial demonstrated that DCC in the delivery room care of preterm infants born to mothers with placental insufficiency increased stem cell transfusion and decreased early- and late-onset anemia.

Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

BACKGROUND: Implantation of an embryo within the endometrial cavity is a critical step in the process of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Previous research has suggested that endometrial injury (also known as endometrial scratching), defined as intentional damage to the endometrium, can increase the chance of pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) including intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and frozen embryo transfer. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2020 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE and two trial registries. We also checked the reference sections of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing intentional endometrial injury before embryo transfer in women undergoing IVF, versus no intervention or a sham procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two independent review authors screened studies, evaluated risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence by using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. We contacted and corresponded with study investigators as required. Due to the high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, the primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at a low risk of bias for selection bias and other bias. Sensitivity analysis was then performed including all studies. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage. MAIN RESULTS: Endometrial injury versus control (no procedure or a sham procedure) A total of 37 studies (8786 women) were included in this comparison. Most studies performed endometrial injury by pipelle biopsy in the luteal phase of the cycle before the IVF cycle. The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and included eight studies. The effect of endometrial injury on live birth is unclear as the result is consistent with no effect, or a small reduction, or an improvement (odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.28; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 15%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth with IVF is usually 27%, then the chance when using endometrial injury would be somewhere between < 27% and 32%. Similarly, the effect of endometrial injury on clinical pregnancy is unclear (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.23; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy from IVF is normally 32%, then the chance when using endometrial injury before IVF is between 31% and 37%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy due to high risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity. Endometrial injury probably results in little to no difference in chance of miscarriage (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), and this result was similar in the sensitivity analysis that included all studies. The result suggests that if the chance of miscarriage with IVF is usually 6.0%, then when using endometrial injury it would be somewhere between 4.2% and 6.8%. Endometrial injury was associated with mild to moderate pain (approximately 4 out of 10), and was generally associated with some minimal bleeding. The evidence was downgraded for imprecision due to wide confidence intervals and therefore all primary analyses were graded as moderate certainty. Higher versus lower degree of injury Only one small study was included in this comparison (participants = 129), which compared endometrial injury using two different instruments in the cycle prior to the IVF cycle: a pipelle catheter and a Shepard catheter. This trial was excluded from the primary analysis due to risk of bias. In the sensitivity analysis, all outcomes reported for this study were graded as very-low certainty due to risk of bias, and as such we were not able to interpret the study results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effect of endometrial injury on live birth and clinical pregnancy among women undergoing IVF is unclear. The results of the meta-analyses are consistent with an increased chance, no effect and a small reduction in these outcomes. We are therefore uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the chance of live birth or clinical pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. Endometrial injury does not appear to affect the chance of miscarriage. It is a somewhat painful procedure associated with a small amount of bleeding. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the routine use of endometrial injury for women undergoing IVF.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs (4035 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Higher versus lower degree of intentional endometrial injury Evidence was insufficient to show whether there is a difference in ongoing pregnancy rates (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; 1 RCT, 332 participants; low-quality evidence) between hysteroscopy with endometrial injury and hysteroscopy alone. Evidence suggests that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy with hysteroscopy alone is 10%, then the chance with hysteroscopy with endometrial injury would be 7% to 24%. This study did not report the primary outcomes of live birth and pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

Oral medications including clomiphene citrate or aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotropins are the most commonly used medications for controlled ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF). However, they are expensive and invasive, and are associated with the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Recent calls for more patient-friendly regimens have led to growing interest in the use of clomiphene citrate (CC) and aromatase inhibitors with or without gonadotropins to reduce the burden of hormonal injections. It is currently unknown whether regimens using CC or aromatase inhibitors such as letrozole (Ltz) are as effective as gonadotropins alone. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of regimens including oral induction medication (such as clomiphene citrate or letrozole) versus gonadotropin-only regimens for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register (searched January 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2017), Embase (1980 to January 2017), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also searched trials registries ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov/) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx). We handsearched relevant conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes were live-birth rate (LBR) and OHSS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. We analyzed the general population of women undergoing IVF treatment and (as a separate analysis) women identified as poor responders. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies in the updated review. Most of the new trials in the updated review included poor responders and evaluated Ltz protocols. We could perform meta-analysis with data from 22 studies including a total of 3599 participants. The quality of the evidence for different comparisons ranged from low to moderate. The main limitations in the quality of the evidence were risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods, and imprecision.In the general population of women undergoing IVF, it is unclear whether CC or Ltz used with or without gonadotropins compared to use of gonadotropins along with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists resulted in a difference in live birth (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.27, 4 RCTs, n = 493, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16, 12 RCTs, n = 1998, I2 = 3%, moderate-quality evidence). This means that for a typical clinic with 23% LBR using a GnRH agonist regimen, switching to CC or Ltz protocols would be expected to result in LBRs between 15% and 30%. Clomiphene citrate or Ltz protocols were associated with a reduction in the incidence of OHSS (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.41, 5 RCTs, n = 1067, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). This means that for a typical clinic with 6% prevalence of OHSS associated with a GnRH regimen, switching to CC or Ltz protocols would be expected to reduce the incidence to between 0.5% and 2.5%. We found evidence of an increase in cycle cancellation rate with the CC protocol compared to gonadotropins in GnRH protocols (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.45, 9 RCTs, n = 1784, I2 = 61%, low-quality evidence). There was moderate quality evidence of a decrease in the mean number of ampoules used,) and mean number of oocytes collected with CC with or without gonadotropins compared to the gonadotropins in GnRH agonist protocols, though data were too heterogeneous to pool.Similarly, in the poor-responder population, it is unclear whether there was any difference in rates of live birth (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.79, 2 RCTs, n = 357, I2 = 38%, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.12, 8 RCTs, n = 1462, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) following CC or Ltz with or without gonadotropin versus gonadotropin and GnRH protocol. This means that for a typical clinic with a 5% LBR in the poor responders using a GnRH protocol, switching to CC or Ltz protocols would be expected to yield LBRs between 2% to 14%. There was low quality evidence that the CC or Ltz protocols were associated with an increase in the cycle cancellation rate (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.81, 10 RCTs, n = 1601, I2 = 64%) and moderate quality evidence of a decrease in the mean number of gonadotropin ampoules used and the mean number of oocytes collected, though data were too heterogeneous to pool. The adverse effects of these protocols were poorly reported. In addition, data on foetal abnormalities following use of CC or Ltz protocols are lacking. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no conclusive evidence indicating that clomiphene citrate or letrozole with or without gonadotropins differed from gonadotropins in GnRH agonist or antagonist protocols with respect to their effects on live-birth or pregnancy rates, either in the general population of women undergoing IVF treatment or in women who were poor responders. Use of clomiphene or letrozole led to a reduction in the amount of gonadotropins required and the incidence of OHSS. However, use of clomiphene citrate or letrozole may be associated with a significant increase in the incidence of cycle cancellations, as well as reductions in the mean number of oocytes retrieved in both the general IVF population and the poor responders. Larger, high-quality randomized trials are needed to reach a firm conclusion before they are adopted into routine clinical practice.

Uterine Sarcoma: Analysis of 13,089 Cases Based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to study the incidence and survival of patients with uterine sarcoma diagnosed in the period from 2000 to 2012 based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. METHODS: All 18 registries of the SEER database were used to select cases. We included women aged 30 years or older diagnosed with uterine sarcoma. Histological subtypes were defined as leiomyosarcoma, carcinosarcoma, stromal sarcoma, adenosarcoma, and sarcoma not otherwise specified according to the 2003 World Health Organization classification. Using SEER*Stat software version 8.1.2. We calculated the age-adjusted incidence rates, extent of disease at time of diagnosis, and survival rates with different treatment modalities for white, black, and other races. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis were done to examine factors affecting survival. RESULTS: We identified 13,089 patients diagnosed with uterine sarcoma in the period from 2000 to 2012. The age-adjusted incidence rate for patients aged 50 years or older was more than that of younger patients (6.4/10 vs 1.5/10, P < 0.0001). Also, the age-adjusted incidence rate for black women was twice that of white women (7.3/10 vs 3.5/10, P < 0.0001). Carcinosarcoma was the most commonly diagnosed subtype followed by leiomyosarcoma. Women aged 50 years or older had worse survival than those younger than 50 years (hazard ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-1.92; P < 0.001). The overall survival of patients who had surgery with radiation was better than those who had surgery alone (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.95; P < 0.001). In women with localized disease, surgery was associated with better survival than surgery with radiation (66.4% vs 74.4%, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Uterine sarcoma is an aggressive tumor that occurs more in old age and among women of black race. Poor survival was associated with old age, black race, and advanced disease stage. Radiotherapy in patients with localized stage does not improve the survival.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Intentional endometrial injury is currently being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy or a similar technique, and is a common, simple, gynaecological procedure that has an established safety profile. However, it is also known to be associated with a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with low complexity fertility treatments such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) and ovulation induction (OI), remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury in subfertile women and couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gyanecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE, ISI Web of Knowledge and ClinicalTrials.gov; as well as reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. We performed the searches from inception to 31 October 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without OI) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed trial quality using GRADE methodology. The primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy and bleeding secondary to the procedure. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials, which included a total of 1512 women, met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review. Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. In seven studies the women were undergoing IUI and in two studies the women were trying to conceive from sexual intercourse. Eight trials compared intentional endometrial injury with no injury/placebo procedure; of these two trials also compared intentional endometrial injury in the cycle prior to IUI with intentional endometrial injury in the IUI cycle. One trial compared higher vs. lower degree of intentional endometrial injury. Intentional endometrial injury vs. either no intervention or a sham procedureWe are uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy as the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low (risk ratio (RR) 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 3.15; six RCTs, 950 participants; I² statistic = 0%, very low quality evidence). When we restricted the analysis to only studies at low risk of bias the effect was imprecise and the evidence remained of very low quality (RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.82; one RCT, 105 participants; very low quality evidence). Endometrial injury may improve clinical pregnancy rates however the evidence is of low quality (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.58; eight RCTs, 1180 participants; I² statistic = 0%, low quality evidence).The average pain experienced by participants undergoing endometrial injury was 6/10 on a zero-10 visual analogue scale (VAS)(standard deviation = 1.5). However, only one study reported this outcome. Higher vs. lower degree of intentional endometrial injuryWhen we compared hysteroscopy with endometrial injury to hysteroscopy alone, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; one RCT, 332 participants; low quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.01; one RCT, 332 participants, low quality evidence). This study did not report the primary outcome of pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injuryWhen endometrial injury was performed in the cycle prior to IUI compared to the same cycle as the IUI, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.16, one RCT, 176 participants; very low quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.36; two RCTs, 276 participants; very low quality evidence). Neither of these studies reported the primary outcome of pain during the procedure.In all three comparisons there was no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or multiple pregnancy. No studies reported bleeding secondary to the procedure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the probability of pregnancy and live birth/ongoing pregnancy in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution as we graded the quality of the evidence as either low or very low. The main reasons we downgraded the quality of the evidence were most included studies were at a high risk of bias and had an overall low level of precision. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise internal bias are required to confirm or refute these findings.

In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.

BACKGROUND: One-third of subfertile couples have no identifiable cause for their inability to conceive. In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a widely accepted treatment for this condition; however, this treatment is invasive and expensive and is associated with risks. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF compared with expectant management, unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI) or intrauterine insemination along with ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (IUI + gonadotropins) or clomiphene (IUI + CC) or letrozole (IUI + letrozole) in improving pregnancy outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, first quarter), MEDLINE (1946 to May 2015), EMBASE (1985 to May 2015), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (May 2015) and reference lists of articles. We searched the following trial registries: clinicaltrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform search portal (http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx). We searched the Web of Science (http://wokinfo.com/) as another source of trials and conference abstracts, OpenGrey (http://www.opengrey.eu/) for unpublished literature from Europe and the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) database (http://regional.bvsalud.org/php/index.php?lang=en). Moreover, we handsearched relevant conference proceedings and contacted study authors to ask about additional publications.Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary review outcome was cumulative live birth rate. Multiple pregnancy and other adverse effects were secondary outcomes. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the effectiveness of IVF in couples with unexplained subfertility was compared with that of other treatments, including expectant management, unstimulated IUI and stimulated IUI using gonadotropins or clomiphene or letrozole.Live birth rate (LBR) per woman was the primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and quality of trials and evaluated the quality of the evidence by using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: IVF versus expectant management (two RCTs):Live birth rate per woman was higher with IVF than with expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 22.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37, one RCT, 51 women, very low quality evidence). Multiple pregnancy rates (MPRs), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and miscarriage were not reported. IVF versus unstimulated IUI (two RCTs):Live birth rate was higher with IVF than with unstimulated IUI (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.12, two RCTs, 156 women, I(2) = 60%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in multiple pregnancy rates (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.04 to 27.29, one RCT, 43 women, very low quality evidence) IVF versus IUI + ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (three RCTs) or clomiphene (one RCT) or letrozole (no RCTs):Data from these trials could not be pooled because of high statistical heterogeneity (I(2) = 93.3%). Heterogeneity was eliminated when studies were stratified by pretreatment status.In trials comparing IVF versus IUI + gonadotropins among treatment-naive women, there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the groups in live birth rates (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.73, four RCTs, 745 women, I(2) = 8.0%, moderate-quality evidence). In women pretreated with IUI + clomiphene, a higher live birth rate was reported among those who underwent IVF than those given IUI + gonadotropins (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.32 to 6.57, one RCT, 280 women, moderate-quality evidence).There was no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF and IUI + CC in treatment-naive women (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.55, one RCT, 103 women, low quality evidence).In treatment-naive women, there was no evidence of a difference in rates of multiple pregnancy between women who underwent IVF and those who received IUI + gonadotropins (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39, four RCTs, 745 women, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in MPRs between women who underwent IVF compared with those given IUI + CC (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.31, one RCT, 103 women, low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference in ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate between treatment-naive women who underwent IVF and those given IUI + gonadotropins (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.14, two RCTs, 221 women, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in OHSS rates between groups receiving IVF versus those receiving IUI + CC (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.31, one RCT, 103 women, low-quality evidence).In treatment naive women, there was no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02, one RCT, 103 women, low-quality evidence), nor between women treated with IVF versus those receiving IUI+ gonadotropins (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02, one RCT, 103 women).No studies compared IVF with IUI + letrozole.The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitation was serious imprecision resulting from small study numbers and low event rates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: IVF may be associated with higher live birth rates than expectant management, but there is insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions. IVF may also be associated with higher live birth rates than unstimulated IUI. In women pretreated with clomiphene + IUI, IVF appears to be associated with higher birth rates than IUI + gonadotropins. However in women who are treatment-naive there is no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins or between IVF and IUI + clomiphene. Adverse events associated with these interventions could not be adequately assessed owing to lack of evidence.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) are commonly used in assisted reproduction technology (ART) cycles to prevent a luteinising hormone surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) prior to planned oocyte retrieval, thus optimising the chances of live birth. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the different GnRHa protocols as adjuncts to COH in women undergoing ART cycles. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to April 2015: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and registries of ongoing trials. Reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two protocols of GnRHa used in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in subfertile women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcome measure was number of live births or ongoing pregnancies per woman/couple randomised. Secondary outcome measures were number of clinical pregnancies, number of oocytes retrieved, dose of gonadotrophins used, adverse effects (pregnancy losses, ovarian hyperstimulation, cycle cancellation, and premature luteinising hormone (LH) surges), and cost and acceptability of the regimens. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous variables and mean differences (MD) for continuous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 37 RCTs (3872 women), one ongoing trial, and one trial awaiting classification. These trials made nine different comparisons between protocols. Twenty of the RCTs compared long protocols and short protocols. Only 19/37 RCTs reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy.There was no conclusive evidence of a difference between a long protocol and a short protocol in live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.81; 12 RCTs, n = 976 women, I² = 15%, low quality evidence). Our findings suggest that in a population in which 14% of women achieve live birth or ongoing pregnancy using a short protocol, between 13% and 23% will achieve live birth or ongoing pregnancy using a long protocol. There was evidence of an increase in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.92; 20 RCTs, n = 1643 women, I² = 27%, moderate quality evidence) associated with the use of a long protocol.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in terms of live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates when the following GnRHa protocols were compared: long versus ultrashort protocol (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.36; one RCT, n = 150 women, low quality evidence), long luteal versus long follicular phase protocol (OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.87 to 4.10; one RCT, n = 223 women, low quality evidence), when GnRHa was stopped versus when it was continued (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.33; three RCTs, n = 290 women, I² = 0%, low quality evidence), when the dose of GnRHa was reduced versus when the same dose was continued (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.52; four RCTs, n = 407 women, I² = 0%, low quality evidence), when GnRHa was discontinued versus continued after human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration in the long protocol (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.64; one RCT, n = 181 women, low quality evidence), and when administration of GnRHa lasted for two versus three weeks before stimulation (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.68; one RCT, n = 85 women, low quality evidence). Our primary outcomes were not reported for any other comparisons.Regarding adverse events, there were insufficient data to enable us to reach any conclusions except about the cycle cancellation rate. There was no conclusive evidence of a difference in cycle cancellation rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.55; 11 RCTs, n = 1026 women, I² = 42%, low quality evidence) when a long protocol was compared with a short protocol. This suggests that in a population in which 9% of women would have their cycles cancelled using a short protocol, between 5.5% and 14% will have cancelled cycles when using a long protocol.The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or ongoing pregnancy, poor reporting of methods in the primary studies, and imprecise findings due to lack of data. Only 10 of the 37 included studies were conducted within the last 10 years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When long GnRHa protocols and short GnRHa protocols were compared, we found no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates, but there was moderate quality evidence of higher clinical pregnancy rates in the long protocol group. None of the other analyses showed any evidence of a difference in birth or pregnancy outcomes between the protocols compared. There was insufficient evidence to make any conclusions regarding adverse effects.

Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques.

BACKGROUND: Implantation of an embryo within the endometrial cavity is a critical step in assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Previous research has suggested that endometrial injury - intentional damage to the endometrium - can increase the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing ART. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and ClinicalTrials.gov. The original search was performed in November 2011, and further searches were done in March 2014 and January 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing intentional endometrial injury before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART, versus no intervention or a sham procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened studies and extracted data which were checked by a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias. We contacted and corresponded with study investigators as required and analysed data using risk ratio (RR) and a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials that included 1063 women in the intervention groups and 1065 women in the control groups. Thirteen studies compared endometrial injury performed between day 7 of the previous cycle and day 7 of the embryo transfer (ET) cycle versus no injury, and one study compared endometrial injury on the day of oocyte retrieval versus no injury. Overall, eight of the 14 included studies were deemed to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain.In studies comparing endometrial injury performed between day 7 of the previous cycle and day 7 of the ET cycle versus no intervention or a sham procedure, endometrial injury was associated with an increase in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate: RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.85; P value 0.01; nine RCTs; 1496 women; I² = 53%; moderate-quality evidence. In other words, moderate-quality evidence suggests that if 26% of women achieve live birth without endometrial injury, between 28% and 48% will achieve live birth with endometrial injury. A sensitivity analysis removing the studies at high risk of bias showed no difference in effect.There was no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, however the evidence is of low-quality: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.53; P value 0.06; eight RCTs; 500 clinical pregnancies; I² = 10%; low-quality evidence.Endometrial injury was also associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate: RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.61; P value 0.002; 13 RCTs; 1972 women; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence. This suggests that if 30% of women achieve clinical pregnancy without endometrial injury, between 33% and 48% will achieve clinical pregnancy with this intervention.Endometrial injury was associated with increased pain, however the evidence was of very low quality. One study reported pain on a VAS scale: MD 4.60, 95% CI 3.98 to 5.22; P value < 0.00001; one RCT; 158 women. Two studies reported the number of pain complaints after the procedure; one recorded no events in either group, and the other reported that endometrial injury increased pain complaints: OR 8.65, 95% CI 2.49 to 30.10; P value 0.0007; one RCT; 101 women.Results from the only randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing endometrial injury on the day of oocyte retrieval versus no injury, reported that this endometrial injury markedly decreased live birth (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69; P value 0.004; 156 women; low-quality evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.71; P value 0.003; one RCT; 156 women; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence indicates that endometrial injury performed between day 7 of the previous cycle and day 7 of the embryo transfer (ET) cycle is associated with an improvement in live birth and clinical pregnancy rates in women with more than two previous embryo transfers. There is no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, multiple pregnancy or bleeding. The procedure is mildly painful. Endometrial injury on the day of oocyte retrieval is associated with a reduction of clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates.Although current evidence suggests some benefit of endometrial injury, we need evidence from well-designed trials that avoid instrumentation of the uterus in the preceding three months, do not cause endometrial damage in the control group, stratify the results for women with and without recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and report live birth.

Endometrial scratching for women with previous IVF failure undergoing IVF treatment.

The purpose of this study was to find out whether endometrial scratching could improve live birth rate in women with previous IVF failure undergoing fresh IVF cycle. In a randomized controlled trial, 387 women with previous IVF failure were divided into two groups. Group A (193 women) was subjected to endometrial biopsy procedure twice. Group B (194 women) was subjected to a placebo procedure. Our results showed no difference in live birth rate between the two groups of women (47.2% versus 38.1%, p = 0.08). However, regression analysis revealed that endometrial scratching was an independent predictor of live birth in the subgroup of women with two or more previous failure after control of other independent predictors (odds ratio (OR) 3.4, p = 0.005). We conclude that endometrial scratching does not improve live birth rate in women undergoing IVF treatment with previous one IVF failure. Nevertheless, it may improve live birth in women with two or more previous IVF failures.

How do Egyptian gynecologists manage infertility? Cross-sectional study.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge and practices of a sample of Egyptian gynecologists with respect to the management and diagnosis of infertility and the variation between gynecologists according to qualifications. METHODS: A questionnaire assessing knowledge, practice habits, and perception towards the management of infertility was distributed to gynecologists. Data were collected during the annual meeting of the Clinical Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which was held in Mansoura, Egypt. Two hundred and fifty-eight gynecologists attended the meeting. Two researchers distributed the questionnaires to the clinicians. Clinician responses to questions were assessed according to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) fertility guidelines. The main outcome measures were knowledge and adherence of gynecologists to NICE infertility guidelines. RESULTS: Significant differences were identified between clinicians with Master degree/Diploma and those with higher degrees (MD or PhD) with regard to knowledge as well as management options of different causes of infertility. CONCLUSION: There is a need to develop and implement national strategies, including mandatory update of reproductive medicine curricula as well as providing continuous professional development programs, in order to boost infertility management in developing countries such as Egypt.

Novel modification of B-Lynch uterine compression sutures for management of atonic postpartum hemorrhage: VV uterine compression sutures.

AIM: The aim of this study was to demonstrate a novel modification of uterine compression sutures for use in women with primary postpartum hemorrhage and to evaluate its effectiveness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational study. Nineteen patients with atonic postpartum hemorrhage were subjected to the novel VV uterine compression sutures at the time of cesarean delivery. RESULTS: The procedure was successful in 18 out of 19 women (94.7%) in controlling the bleeding and preserving the patient's uterus. Only one patient required supravaginal hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: VV compression sutures comprise an easy, safe and effective procedure that can be applied in cases of atonic postpartum hemorrhage.

Endometrial scratching to improve pregnancy rate in couples with unexplained subfertility: a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of endometrial scratching in women with unexplained infertility. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in Mansoura University Teaching Hospital and a private practice setting. A total of 105 couples with unexplained infertility were randomly allocated into two groups: group A comprised 54 women who underwent endometrial scratching in the luteal phase of a spontaneous menstrual cycle; and group B included 51 women who underwent a placebo procedure. The main outcome measured was cumulative clinical pregnancy rate after 6 months and miscarriage rate. RESULTS: Clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the women experiencing endometrial biopsy than in the control group (25.9% and 9.8%, respectively, P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in miscarriage rate between pregnant women in the endometrial injury group and pregnant women in the control group (12.5% and 16.5%, respectively, P = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Endometrial scratching may improve clinical pregnancy rates in couples with unexplained infertility. Adequately powered studies are mandated to confirm or refute the findings.

Clomiphene citrate co-treatment with low dose urinary FSH versus urinary FSH for clomiphene resistant PCOS: randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of clomiphene citrate [CC] co-administration during the use of exogenous low-dose urinary FSH [uFSH] for induction of ovulation in CC-resistant infertile PCOS women. METHODS: In a randomised controlled setting, 174 CC-resistant infertile PCOS women were randomized into two parallel groups; Group I received CC 100 mg/day for 5 days plus uFSH 37.5 IU/day while group II received only uFSH 37.5 IU /day. Subsequent increments of uFSH by 37.5 IU/day were made according to response. Primary outcome was ovulation rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rates, number of follicles, endometrial thickness, and gonadotropins consumption. RESULTS: Our results have demonstrated that group I compared to group II had significantly higher ovulation rate per intention to treat [ITT] [72.4 % vs. 34.2 %, p < 0.001]. Clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were comparable between the two groups. Group I consumed significantly lower total FSH dose and needed significantly shorter stimulation duration compared to group II. CONCLUSION: CC co-administered during low dose HP uFSH versus uFSH for CC-resistant PCOS yields significantly higher ovulation rate and less consumption of FSH.

Clomiphene citrate in combination with gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilization.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotropins are the most commonly used medication for controlled ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization (IVF). However, they are expensive, invasive and are associated with risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). With recent calls for patient friendly IVF, there has been an interest in the use of clomiphene citrate with or without gonadotropins to reduce the burden of injections. However, it is not known whether regimens using clomiphene are at least as effective as gonadotropins alone. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether clomiphene citrate with gonadotropins (with or without mid-cycle antagonist) is more effective than gonadotropins with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched March 2012), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, first quarter), MEDLINE (1970 to March 2012), EMBASE (1985 to Mar 2012) and reference lists of articles. Relevant conference proceedings were handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included. Live birth rate (LBR) per woman was the primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and quality of trials MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the review. Meta-analysis could be performed with the data of 12 included studies, with a total of 2536 participants. There was no evidence that clomiphene along with gonadotropins for IVF, with or without mid-cycle GnRH antagonist, differed from gonadotropins alone in GnRH agonist protocols in terms of live births (5 RCTs, 1079 women; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to1.24) or clinical pregnancy (11 RCTs, 1864 women; OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to1.33). This means that for a typical clinic with 23% LBR using a GnRH agonist regimen, switching to clomiphene protocols would be expected to result in LBRs between 16% and 26%. There was a significant reduction in the incidence of OHSS (5 RCTs, 1559 women; OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.52). This means that for a typical clinic with 3.5% prevalence of OHSS using a GnRH agonist regimen, switching to clomiphene citrate protocols would be expected to reduce the incidence to between 0.8% and 1.8%. The trials included in this review were very old and outcomes such as live births, multiple pregnancy, OHSS and miscarriages have not been reported by most studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence to indicate that clomiphene with gonadotropins (with or without GnRH antagonist) differed significantly from gonadotropins in GnRH agonist protocols for women undergoing IVF treatment, in terms of live births or pregnancy rates. Meanwhile, use of clomiphene led to a reduction in the incidence of OHSS. However, these results were based on data from a small number of underpowered randomised trials with few participants. Hence there was insufficient evidence to recommend use of clomiphene citrate in routine IVF practice. Larger trials with adequate power are required.

In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a widely accepted treatment for unexplained infertility (NICE 2004), which affects up to a third of all infertile couples. With estimated live birth rates (LBRs) per cycle varying from 33.1% in women aged under 35 years down to 12.5% in women aged between 40 and 42 years (HFEA 2011), its effectiveness has not been rigorously evaluated in comparison with other treatments. With increasing awareness of the role of expectant management, less-invasive procedures such as intrauterine insemination (IUI), and concerns about multiple pregnancies and costs associated with IVF, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of IVF against other treatment options in couples with unexplained infertility. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF compared to expectant management, clomiphene citrate, IUI alone and intrauterine insemination plus controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI+SO). SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched July 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, first quarter), MEDLINE (1970 to July 2011), EMBASE (1985 to July 2011) and reference lists of articles were searched. Relevant conference proceedings were handsearched. Authors were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. LBR per woman was the primary outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs were included in the final analysis. LBR per woman was significantly higher with IVF (45.8%) than expectant management (3.7%) (odds ratio (OR) 22.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37, 1 RCT, 51 women). There were no comparative data for clomiphene citrate. There was no evidence of a significant difference in LBR between IVF and IUI alone (OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.36, 1 RCT, 113 women), 40.7% with IVF versus 25.9% with IUI. In studies comparing IVF versus IUI+SO, LBR per woman did not differ significantly between the groups among treatment-naive women (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.59, 2 RCTs, 234 women) but was significantly higher in a large RCT of women pretreated with IUI + clomiphene citrate (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.63, 1 RCT, 341 women). These three studies could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity (I(2) = 84%). There was no evidence of a significant difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) or ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) between the two treatments (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.29, 3 RCTs, 351 women; OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.49, 1 RCT, 118 women, respectively). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: IVF may be more effective than IUI+SO. Due to paucity of data from RCTs the effectiveness of IVF for unexplained infertility relative to expectant management, clomiphene citrate and IUI alone remains unproven. Adverse events and the costs associated with these interventions have not been adequately assessed.