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

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

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

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

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

A core outcome set for future endometriosis research: an international consensus development study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a core outcome set for endometriosis. DESIGN: Consensus development study. SETTING: International. POPULATION: One hundred and sixteen healthcare professionals, 31 researchers and 206 patient representatives. METHODS: Modified Delphi method and modified nominal group technique. RESULTS: The final core outcome set includes three core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for pain and other symptoms associated with endometriosis: overall pain; improvement in the most troublesome symptom; and quality of life. In addition, eight core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for infertility associated with endometriosis were identified: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound; pregnancy loss, including ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy; live birth; time to pregnancy leading to live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital abnormalities. Two core outcomes applicable to all trials were also identified: adverse events and patient satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Using robust consensus science methods, healthcare professionals, researchers and women with endometriosis have developed a core outcome set to standardise outcome selection, collection and reporting across future randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for endometriosis. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @coreoutcomes for future #endometriosis research have been developed @jamesmnduffy.

Are interventions in reproductive medicine assessed for plausible and clinically relevant effects? A systematic review of power and precision in trials and meta-analyses.

STUDY QUESTION: How much statistical power do randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have to investigate the effectiveness of interventions in reproductive medicine? SUMMARY ANSWER: The largest trials in reproductive medicine are unlikely to detect plausible improvements in live birth rate (LBR), and meta-analyses do not make up for this shortcoming. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Effectiveness of interventions is best evaluated using RCTs. In order to be informative, these trials should be designed to have sufficient power to detect the smallest clinically relevant effect. Similar trials can subsequently be pooled in meta-analyses to more precisely estimate treatment effects. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A review of power and precision in 199 RCTs and meta-analyses from 107 Cochrane Reviews was conducted. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Systematic reviews published by Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility with the primary outcome live birth were identified. For each live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) meta-analysis and for the largest RCT in each, we calculated the power to detect absolute improvements in LBR of varying sizes. Additionally, the 95% CIs of estimated treatment effects from each meta-analysis and RCT were recorded, as these indicate the precision of the result. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Median (interquartile range) power to detect an improvement in LBR of 5 percentage points (pp) (e.g. 25-30%) was 13% (8-21%) for RCTs and 16% (9-33%) for meta-analyses. No RCTs and only 2% of meta-analyses achieved 80% power to detect an improvement of 5 pp. Median power was high (85% for trials and 93% for meta-analyses) only in relation to 20 pp absolute LBR improvement, although substantial numbers of trials and meta-analyses did not achieve 80% power even for this improbably large effect size. Median width of 95% CIs was 25 pp and 21 pp for RCTs and meta-analyses, respectively. We found that 28% of Cochrane Reviews with LBR as the primary outcome contain no live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) data. LARGE-SCALE DATA: The data used in this study may be accessed at https://osf.io/852tn/?view_only=90f1579ce72747ccbe572992573197bd. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The design and analysis decisions used in this study are predicted to overestimate the power of trials and meta-analyses, and the size of the problem is therefore likely understated. For some interventions, it is possible that larger trials not reporting live birth or ongoing pregnancy have been conducted, which were not included in our sample. In relation to meta-analyses, we calculated power as though all participants were included in a single trial. This ignores heterogeneity between trials in a meta-analysis, and will cause us to overestimate power. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Trials capable of detecting realistic improvements in LBR are lacking in reproductive medicine, and meta-analyses are not large enough to overcome this deficiency. This situation will lead to unwarranted pessimism as well as unjustified enthusiasm regarding reproductive interventions, neither of which are consistent with the practice of evidence-based medicine or the idea of informed patient choice. However, RCTs and meta-analyses remain vital to establish the effectiveness of fertility interventions. We discuss strategies to improve the evidence base and call for collaborative studies focusing on the most important research questions. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no specific funding for this study. KS and SL declare no conflict of interest. AV consults for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA): all fees are paid directly to AV's employer. JW declares that publishing research benefits his career. SR is a Statistical Editor for Human Reproduction. JW and AV are Statistical Editors for Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility. DRB is funded by the NHS as Scientific Director of a clinical IVF service. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: None.

Developments in IVF warrant the adoption of new performance indicators for ART clinics, but do not justify the abandonment of patient-centred measures.

Recent advances in embryo freezing technology together with growing concerns over multiple births have shifted the paradigm of appropriate IVF. This has led to the adoption of new performance indicators for ART clinics by national reporting schemes, such as those curated by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) and the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Using these organizations as case studies, we review several outcome measures from a statistical perspective. We describe several denominators that are used to calculate live birth rates. These include cumulative birth rates calculated from all fresh and frozen transfer procedures arising from a particular egg collection or cycle initiation, and live birth rates calculated per embryo transferred. Using data from both schemes, we argue that all cycles should be included in the denominator, regardless of whether or not egg collection and fertilization were successful. Excluding cancelled cycles reduces the impact of confounding due to patient characteristics but also removes policy and performance differences which we argue represent relevant sources of variation. It may be misleading to present prospective patients with essentially hypothetical measures of performance predicated on parity of ovarian stimulation and transfer policies. Although live birth per embryo has the advantage of encouraging single embryo transfer, we argue that it is prone to misinterpretation. This is because the likelihood of live birth is not proportional to the number of embryos transferred. We conclude that it is not possible to present a single measure that encompasses both effectiveness and safety. Instead, we propose that a set of clear, relevant outcome indicators is necessary to enable subfertile patients to make informed choices regarding whether and where to be treated.

Concurrent beneficial (vitamin D production) and hazardous (cutaneous DNA damage) impact of repeated low-level summer sunlight exposures.

BACKGROUND: The concurrent impact of repeated low-level summer sunlight exposures on vitamin D production and cutaneous DNA damage, potentially leading to mutagenesis and skin cancer, is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This is an experimental study (i) to determine the dual impact of repeated low-level sunlight exposures on vitamin D status and DNA damage/repair (via both skin and urinary biomarkers) in light-skinned adults; and (ii) to compare outcomes following the same exposures in brown-skinned adults. METHODS: Ten white (phototype II) and six South Asian volunteers (phototype V), aged 23-59 years, received 6 weeks' simulated summer sunlight exposures (95% ultraviolet A/5% ultraviolet B, 1·3 standard erythemal doses three times weekly) wearing summer clothing exposing ~35% body surface area. Assessments made were circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], immunohistochemistry for cyclobutane pyrimidine dimer (CPD)-positive nuclei and urinary biomarkers of direct and oxidative (8-oxo-deoxyguanosine) DNA damage. RESULTS: Serum 25(OH)D rose from mean 36·5 ± 13·0 to 54·3 ± 10·5 nmol L-1 (14·6 ± 5·2 to 21·7 ± 4·2 ng mL-1 ) in phototype II vs. 17·2 ± 6·3 to 25·5 ± 9·5 nmol L-1 (6·9 ± 2·5 to 10·2 ± 3·8 ng mL-1 ) in phototype V (P < 0·05). Phototype II skin showed CPD-positive nuclei immediately postcourse, mean 44% (range 27-84) cleared after 24 h, contrasting with minimal DNA damage and full clearance in phototype V (P < 0·001). The findings did not differ from those following single ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure. Urinary CPDs remained below the detection threshold in both groups; 8-oxo-deoxyguanosine was higher in phototype II than V (P = 0·002), but was unaffected by UVR. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose summer sunlight exposures confer vitamin D sufficiency in light-skinned people concurrently with low-level, nonaccumulating DNA damage. The same exposures produce minimal DNA damage but less vitamin D in brown-skinned people. This informs tailoring of sun-exposure policies.

Time-lapse in the IVF-lab: how should we assess potential benefit?

Time-lapse imaging of embryos has been widely introduced to fertility laboratories worldwide with the aim of identifying the best quality embryos to transfer that will ultimately improve IVF success rates. In this opinion paper, we explore the lack of evidence of benefit of this novel intervention, analyse the methodological flaws of current studies, offer ideal study designs that assess the various features of time-lapse imaging, and discuss forthcoming studies. In particular, we emphasize the ethical aspects of hastily adopting a costly technology without current high level evidence of improved live birth rates, safety and cost effectiveness.

Sunlight exposure and photoprotection behaviour of white Caucasian adolescents in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Sun exposure has positive and negative effects on health, yet little is known about the sun exposure behaviour of UK adolescents, including those more prone or less prone to sunburn. OBJECTIVE: To examine sun exposure behaviour of UK white Caucasian adolescents including time spent outdoors, holiday behaviour, use of sunscreen and clothing, with assessment for differences between sun-reactive skin type groups. METHODS: White Caucasian adolescents (12-15 years) attending schools in Greater Manchester completed a two-page questionnaire to assess sun exposure and photoprotective behaviour. RESULTS: A total of 133 adolescents (median age 13.4 years; 39% skin type I/II, 61% skin type III/IV) completed the questionnaire. In summer, adolescents spent significantly longer outdoors at weekends (median 4 h/day, range 0.25-10) than on weekdays (2, 0.25-6; P < 0.0001). When at home in the UK during summer, 44% reported never wearing sunscreen compared to just 1% when on a sunny holiday. Sunscreen use was also greater (frequency/coverage) when on a sunny holiday than at home in the UK summer (P < 0.0001). Adolescents of skin types I/II (easy burning) spent significantly less time outdoors than skin types III/IV (easy tanning) on summer weekends (P < 0.001), summer weekdays (P < 0.05) and on a sunny holiday (P = 0.001). Furthermore, skin types I/II reported greater sunscreen use during summer in the UK and on sunny holiday (both P < 0.01), and wore clothing covering a greater skin area on a sunny holiday (P < 0.01) than skin types III/IV. There was no difference in sun exposure behaviour/protection between males and females. CONCLUSION: The greater sun-protective measures reported by adolescents of sun-reactive skin type group I/II than III/IV suggest those who burn more easily are aware of the greater need to protect their skin. However, use of sunscreen during the UK summer is low and may need more effective promotion in adolescents.

Sunlight exposure behaviour and vitamin D status in photosensitive patients: longitudinal comparative study with healthy individuals at U.K. latitude.

BACKGROUND: Low vitamin D status is prevalent in wintertime in populations at northerly latitudes. Photosensitive patients are advised to practise sun avoidance, but their sunlight exposure levels, photoprotective measures and resulting vitamin D status are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To examine seasonal vitamin D status in photosensitive patients relative to healthy individuals and to assess quantitatively behavioural and demographic contributors. METHODS: This was a longitudinal prospective cohort study (53·5°N) examining year-round 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels, sun-exposure behaviour and oral vitamin D intake in photosensitive patients diagnosed at a photoinvestigation unit (n = 53), compared with concurrently assessed healthy adults (n = 109). RESULTS: Photosensitive patients achieved seasonal 25(OH)D variation, but insufficient (< 20 ng mL(-1); 50 nmol L(-1)) and even deficient (< 10 ng mL(-1); 25 nmol L(-1)) levels occurred at the summer peak in 47% and 9% of patients, respectively, rising to 73% and 32% at the winter trough. Adjusting for demographic factors, the mean values were lower than for healthy volunteers by 18% [95% confidence interval (CI) 4-29] in summer (P = 0·02) and 25% (95% CI 7-39) in winter (P = 0·01). Behavioural factors explained 25(OH)D differences between cohorts. Patients demonstrated lower weekend ultraviolet B doses (P < 0·001), smaller skin surface area exposure (P = 0·004) and greater sunscreen use (P < 0·001), while average oral vitamin D intake was low in both groups (photosensitive: 2·94 µg per day). Supplementation and summer surface area exposure predicted summer peak and winter trough 25(OH)D levels. A 1 µg per day increment in supplementary vitamin D raised summer and winter 25(OH)D by 5% (95% CI 3-7) and 9% (95% CI 5-12), respectively (both P < 0·001). CONCLUSIONS: Photosensitive patients are, through their photoprotective measures, at high risk of year-round low vitamin D status. Guidance on oral measures should target this patient group and their physicians.

Lifestyle factors including less cutaneous sun exposure contribute to starkly lower vitamin D levels in U.K. South Asians compared with the white population.

BACKGROUND: Long-standing concerns over the vitamin D status of South Asian adults in the U.K. require studies using statistically valid sample sizes to measure annual variation and contributory lifestyle factors. OBJECTIVES: To measure annual variation in the vitamin D status of U.K. South Asians, to determine the associated lifestyle influences, and to compare these with a similar study of white adults. METHODS: A single-centre, prospective cohort study measuring circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], sunlight exposure levels and lifestyle factors for 1 year in 125 ambulant South Asian adults with sun-reactive skin type V, aged 20-60 years, in Greater Manchester, U.K. (53·5°N). RESULTS: The 25(OH)D levels of South Asians were alarmingly low. In summer, their median 25(OH)D level was 9·0 ng mL(-1) , [interquartile range (IQR) 6·7-13·1], falling to 5·8 ng mL(-1) (IQR 4·0-8·1) in winter. This compared with values in the white population of 26·2 ng mL(-1) (IQR 19·9-31·5) in summer and 18·9 ng mL(-1) IQR (11·6-23·7) in winter. Median daily dietary vitamin D was lower in South Asians (1·32 µg vs. 3·26 µg for white subjects) and was compounded by low supplement use. Despite similar times spent outdoors, ultraviolet (UV) dosimeters recorded lower personal UV exposure among South Asians, indicating sun avoidance when outside, while sun exposure diaries recorded lower amounts of skin surface exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of South Asians never reached sufficiency in vitamin D status. Lifestyle differences, with lower oral intake, sun exposure and rates of cutaneous production due to darker skin, indicate that standard advice on obtaining sufficient vitamin D needs modification for the South Asian community in the U.K.

A prospective study of systemic sclerosis-related digital ulcers: prevalence, location, and functional impact.

OBJECTIVES: Although digital ulcers (DUs) are common in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc), prevalence estimates vary, and functional impact and pathophysiology have been relatively little studied. We investigated the point prevalence of all DUs (both digital-tip and extensor) in a cohort of patients with SSc, testing the hypothesis that both digital-tip and extensor ulcers are associated with functional impairment. METHOD: Over a 12-month period, patients attending an SSc clinic for annual review were assessed by specialist nurses: active DUs were documented and the Hand Mobility in Scleroderma (HAMIS) test performed. Patients also completed the Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire (SHAQ), the Scleroderma Functional Index (SFI), and the Cochin Hand Function Scale (CHFS). RESULTS: A total of 25 active DUs (nine digital-tip and 16 extensor surface) were found in 15 of the 148 patients recruited, giving a prevalence for each ulcer type of 6% and an overall point prevalence of 10%. HAMIS scores were higher (indicating greater impairment) in those with active DUs than in those without: left hand difference 8.8 points [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.2-14.5], p = 0.002; difference significant for extensor as well as digital-tip ulcers. Active DUs were associated with higher visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain (p = 0.04), DUs (p < 0.001), and 'overall' assessment (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Extensor surface ulcers have the same prevalence as digital-tip ulcers in patients with SSc, and are equally disabling. Clinical trials should therefore include both categories of DUs.

In situ measurements of reef squid polarization patterns using two-dimensional polarization data mapped onto three-dimensional tessellated surfaces.

Reef squids belong to a group reputed for polarization sensitivity, yet polarization patterns of reef squid have not been quantified in situ. To quantify polarization patterns from video polarimetric data, we developed a protocol to map two-dimensional polarization data onto squid-shaped three-dimensional tessellated surfaces. This protocol provided a robust data container used to investigate three-dimensional regions-of-interest, producing data lineouts derived from the squid's geometry. This protocol also extracted polarimeter and squid body orientations and the solar heading from polarization images. When averaged over the solar heading, the ventral midline gave a low degree of polarization (2.4 ± 5.3%), and the area between the ventral and flank midlines had higher values (9.0 ± 5.3%). These averaged data had a large discontinuity in the angle of polarization (AoP) at the mantle's ventral midline (64 ± 55°), with larger discontinuities measured on individual squid. Ray-tracing calculations demonstrated that the AoP pattern was not related to the squid's surface-normal geometry. However, the AoP followed virtual striation axes on the squid's surface oriented 24° to the squid's long axis, similar in angle (27°) to the striations of birefringent collagen fibres documented in other squid species' skin.

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

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

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

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

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Embryo and uterine influences on IVF outcomes: an analysis of a UK multi-centre cohort.

BACKGROUND: In order to optimize IVF strategies, particularly with the use of single embryo transfer, good predictive models are required. Here, we develop a model to allow such prediction, and the structure of the models point to more general conclusions about the mode of action of prognostic factors. METHODS: Anonymized data from consecutive embryo transfers in five IVF centres in the UK for the 2000-2005 period were extracted and the morphological grade based on common scoring criteria was included. There were 16 096 (12 487 fresh and 3609 frozen) transfers, for 8775 couples, available for analysis. Live birth data were fitted to a model with separate sub-models for embryo and recipient effects [the 'Embryo-Uterus' (EU) model]. All covariates were included, with sub-model selection using Akaike's information criterion. RESULTS: Age, number of embryos created, attempt number, previous history of pregnancy, duration of infertility, day of transfer and tubal diagnosis were all identified as significant prognostic factors, along with embryo grade and growth rate. Frozen transfers were substantially less likely to lead to a live birth with odds ratios of 1/3 to 1/2 compared with fresh transfers, with no evidence of differential loss for any particular patient group. Age acts predominantly through the embryo component with only a weak effect on the uterus. The embryo number, attempt number, previous pregnancies and duration of infertility act predominantly through the uterine environment. Both sub-models show significant heterogeneity between centres. CONCLUSIONS: The EU modelling framework has generated a model for predicting outcomes of embryo-transfer procedures, subject to the limitations of routinely collected data. With this large data set, the model allows identification of factors that act specifically on embryo viability or maternal receptivity. Variability in the two components between centres with similar overall outcomes suggests scope for further optimization of IVF treatment.