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.

Impact of tubal patency test selection on the live birth rate following intrauterine insemination in couples with unexplained infertility: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We planned a study to evaluate the impact of selecting hysterosalpingography (HSG) over diagnostic laparoscopy during initial fertility evaluation on IUI treatment outcomes in couples diagnosed with unexplained infertility. METHODS: The study comprised a retrospective cohort and included couples evaluated for infertility at our tertiary level hospital between January 2008 and December 2019. Couples diagnosed with unexplained infertility based on tubal patency tests (either HSG or diagnostic laparoscopy) were included. We compared outcomes following ovarian stimulation (OS) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) between women who underwent HSG versus laparoscopy for up to three treatment cycles. RESULTS: A total of 7413 women were screened, out of which 1002 women were diagnosed with unexplained infertility. We did not find a significant statistical difference in the clinical pregnancy (16.7% vs. 11.7%; OR (odds ratio) 1.51; 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.90-2.5) or live birth rate per IUI cycle (15.1% vs. 10.7%; OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.9-2.6) in women who underwent HSG for tubal evaluation as compared to laparoscopy. After adjustment for potential confounders through multivariate analysis, we found that outcomes were comparable between the HSG and laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: The current study did not find any significant difference in treatment outcomes following OS and IUI in women with unexplained infertility who underwent HSG compared to laparoscopy for the assessment of the tubal patency during the initial fertility workup. The finding suggests minimal or no impact of selecting HSG over diagnostic laparoscopy as a tubal patency test on the subsequent IUI outcomes.

Non-invasive Prenatal Testing in Pregnancies Following Assisted Reproduction.

In the decade since non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) was first implemented as a prenatal screening tool, it has gained recognition for its sensitivity and specificity in the detection of common aneuploidies. This review mainly focuses on the emerging role of NIPT in pregnancies following assisted reproductive technology (ART) in the light of current evidence and recommendations. It also deals with the challenges, shortcomings and interpretational difficulties related to NIPT in ART pregnancies, with particular emphasis on twin and vanishing twin pregnancies, which are widely regarded as the Achilles' heel of most pre-natal screening platforms. Future directions for exploration towards improving the performance and extending the scope of NIPT are also addressed.

Peri-implantation glucocorticoid administration for assisted reproductive technology cycles.

BACKGROUND: The use of peri-implantation glucocorticoids has been advocated to improve embryo implantation during assistive reproductive technology (ART) cycles such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). It has been proposed that glucocorticoids may improve the intrauterine environment by acting as immunomodulators to reduce the uterine natural killer (NK) cell count and activity, normalising the cytokine expression profile in the endometrium and by suppression of endometrial inflammation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of glucocorticoids versus no glucocorticoids administered around the time of anticipated implantation in women undergoing IVF or ICSI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group specialised register, CENTRAL (now also containing output from two trial registers and CINAHL), MEDLINE and Embase, on 20 December 2021, together with reference checking, contact with experts in the field and relevant conference proceedings to identify additional studies. This review is an update of the review first published in  2007 and last updated in 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of supplementary systemic administration of glucocorticoids in the peri-implantation period with a placebo or no glucocorticoids in subfertile women undergoing IVF or ICSI were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth rate and multiple pregnancy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs (2232 couples analysed). We are uncertain whether glucocorticoids improved live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 2.71; 2 RCTs, n = 366; I2 = 7%; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no glucocorticoids/placebo is assumed to be 9%, the chance following glucocorticoids would be between 6% and 21%. We are also uncertain whether there was a difference between peri-implantation glucocorticoids on multiple pregnancy rates per couple (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.20; 4 RCTs, n = 504; I2 = 53%; very low-certainty evidence). The I2 of 53% may represent moderate statistical heterogeneity and results have to be interpreted with caution. With regard to pregnancy rates, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between ongoing pregnancy rates after glucocorticoids versus no glucocorticoids/placebo (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.76; 3 RCTs, n = 476; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy rates after glucocorticoids versus no glucocorticoids/placebo (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; 13 RCTs, n = 1967; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no glucocorticoids/placebo is assumed to be 25%, the chance following glucocorticoids would be between 24% and 32%. Furthermore, we are also uncertain whether peri-implantation glucocorticoids influenced miscarriage rates per couple (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.87; 6 RCTs, n = 821; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), the incidence of ectopic pregnancies per couple (OR 2.28, 95% CI 0.33 to 15.62; 3 RCTs, n = 320; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per couple (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.90; 3 RCTs, n = 370; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) compared to no glucocorticoids/placebo. The evidence was very low to low certainty: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was insufficient evidence that administration of peri-implantation glucocorticoids in IVF/ICSI cycles influenced clinical outcomes. These findings were limited to the routine use of glucocorticoids in subfertile women undergoing IVF or ICSI.

Effectiveness of music therapy as an adjuvant to conscious sedation in women undergoing transvaginal oocyte retrieval: A randomized controlled trial.

AIM: Assisted reproductive technique (ART) has emerged as the highest form of treatment for infertile couples. Transvaginal oocyte retrieval is currently performed under conscious sedation in most centers. Since it is a relatively painful procedure, a number of adjuvant therapies have been tried to improve pain relief during the procedure. Music therapy is a nonpharmacological technique that has been successfully used for pain relief in perioperative and chronic pain of malignancy. However, studies evaluating its usefulness in ART-related procedures are limited. We evaluated the effectiveness of music therapy as an adjuvant for pain relief during oocyte retrieval. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial conducted at a tertiary level teaching hospital in South India from September 2020 to March 2021. All women undergoing transvaginal oocyte retrieval were randomized to receive either music therapy along with conscious sedation (Group A) or conscious sedation alone (Group B). The primary outcome was postprocedure pain score assessed by the visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included anxiety score. RESULTS: A total of 109 women were randomized into Group A (54 women) and Group B (55 women). The postprocedure pain score was comparable between the two study groups (6.0, interquartile range [IQR] 4 to 6 vs. 6.0, IQR 4 to 6; p = 0.69). However, anxiety levels were found to be significantly lower in women who were offered music therapy (3.0, IQR 1 to 5 vs. 4.0, IQR 3 to 6; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The use of music therapy as an adjuvant to conscious sedation was found to have no significant benefit in pain relief during oocyte retrieval.

Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection.

BACKGROUND: Transfer of more than one embryo during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) increases multiple pregnancy rates resulting in an increased risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity. Elective single embryo transfer offers a means of minimising this risk, but this potential gain needs to be balanced against the possibility of jeopardising the overall live birth rate (LBR). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different policies for the number of embryos transferred in infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology cycles. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to March 2020. We handsearched reference lists of articles and relevant conference proceedings. We also communicated with experts in the field regarding any additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different policies for the number of embryos transferred following IVF or ICSI in infertile women. Studies of fresh or frozen and thawed transfer of one to four embryos at cleavage or blastocyst stage were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. The primary outcomes were LBR and multiple pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates. We analysed data using risk ratios (RR), Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) and a fixed effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs in the review (2505 women). The main limitation was inadequate reporting of study methods and moderate to high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. A majority of the studies had low numbers of participants. None of the trials compared repeated single embryo transfer (SET) with multiple embryo transfer. Reported results of multiple embryo transfer below refer to double embryo transfer. Repeated single embryo transfer versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle Repeated SET was compared with double embryo transfer (DET) in four studies of cleavage-stage transfer. In these studies the SET group received either two cycles of fresh SET (one study) or one cycle of fresh SET followed by one frozen SET (three studies). The cumulative live birth rate after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET (RR 0.95, 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.82 to 1.10; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 42% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the repeated SET would yield pregnancy rates between 34% and 46%. The multiple pregnancy rate associated with repeated SET is probably reduced compared to a single cycle of DET (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.21; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 13% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following repeated SET would be between 0% and 3%. The clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; I² = 47%; 3 studies, 943 participants; low-quality evidence) after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET. There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups. Single versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle A single cycle of SET was compared with a single cycle of DET in 13 studies, 11 comparing cleavage-stage transfers and three comparing blastocyst-stage transfers.One study reported both cleavage and blastocyst stage transfers. Low-quality evidence suggests that the live birth rate per woman may be reduced in women who have SET in comparison with those who have DET (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; I² = 0%; 12 studies, 1904 participants; low-quality evidence). Thus, for a woman with a 46% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the chance following a single cycle of SET would be between 27% and 35%. The multiple pregnancy rate per woman is probably lower in those who have SET than those who have DET (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.22; I² = 0%; 13 studies, 1952 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 15% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following a single cycle of SET would be between 2% and 4%. Low-quality evidence suggests that the clinical pregnancy rate may be lower in women who have SET than in those who have DET (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1860 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although DET achieves higher live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per fresh cycle, the evidence suggests that the difference in effectiveness may be substantially offset when elective SET is followed by a further transfer of a single embryo in fresh or frozen cycle, while simultaneously reducing multiple pregnancies, at least among women with a good prognosis. The quality of evidence was low to moderate primarily due to inadequate reporting of study methods and absence of masking those delivering, as well as receiving the interventions.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) seems to play an important role in the process of embryo implantation and continuation of pregnancy. It has been used during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for subfertile women with chronically thin endometrium and those with previous multiple IVF failures. It is currently unknown whether G-CSF is effective in improving results following assisted reproductive technology (ART). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of G-CSF in women undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in February 2019. We searched reference lists of relevant articles and handsearched relevant conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing G-CSF administration versus no treatment or placebo in subfertile women undergoing IVF treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live-birth rate and miscarriage rate following G-CSF administration. We have reported ongoing pregnancy rate in cases where studies did not report live birth but reported ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, adverse events, ectopic pregnancy rate, small for gestational age at birth, abnormally adherent placenta, and congenital anomaly rate. We analysed data using risk ratio (RR), Peto odds ratio and a fixed-effect model. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials involving 622 women who received G-CSF and 631 women who received placebo or no additional treatment during IVF. The main limitations in the quality of the evidence were inadequate reporting of study methods and high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. We assessed only two of the 15 included trials as at a low risk of bias. None of the trials reported the primary effectiveness outcome of live-birth rate. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves ongoing pregnancy rate compared to control in subfertile women undergoing ART (RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 2.42; 2 RCTs; participants = 263; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with 14% ongoing pregnancy rate, G-CSF administration would be expected to result in ongoing pregnancy rates between 12% and 35%. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration reduces miscarriage rate (Peto odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.83; 3 RCTs; participants = 391; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence) compared to the control group in subfertile women undergoing ART. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves overall clinical pregnancy rate compared to control in subfertile women undergoing ART (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.01; 14 RCTs; participants = 1253; I² = 13%; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with 17% clinical pregnancy rate, G-CSF administration would be expected to result in clinical pregnancy rates between 23% and 35%. In the unselected IVF population, we are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves clinical pregnancy rate compared to the control group (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.60; 3 RCTs; participants = 404; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). G-CSF administration may improve clinical pregnancy rate in women with two or more previous IVF failures compared to the control group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.85; 7 RCTs; participants = 643; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). In subfertile women with thin endometrium undergoing ART, we are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves clinical pregnancy rate compared to the control group (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.63; 4 RCTs; participants = 206; I² = 30%; low-quality evidence). No study reported on multiple pregnancy rate. Only four trials reported adverse events as an outcome, and none of them reported any major adverse events following either G-CSF administration or placebo/no treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In subfertile women undergoing ART, we are uncertain whether the administration of G-CSF improves ongoing pregnancy or overall clinical pregnancy rates or reduces miscarriage rate compared to no treatment or placebo, whether in all women or those with thin endometrium, based on very low-quality evidence. Low-quality evidence suggests that G-CSF administration may improve clinical pregnancy rate in women with two or more IVF failures, but the included studies had unclear allocation concealment or were at high risk of performance bias.

Screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women and women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Screening hysteroscopy in infertile women with unexplained infertility, or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) may reveal intrauterine pathology that may not be detected by routine transvaginal ultrasound. Hysteroscopy, whether purely diagnostic or operative may improve reproductive outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women undergoing evaluation for infertility, and subfertile women undergoing IUI or IVF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL CRSO, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (September 2018). We searched reference lists of relevant articles and handsearched relevant conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing screening hysteroscopy versus no intervention in subfertile women wishing to conceive spontaneously, or before undergoing IUI or IVF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and complications following hysteroscopy. We analysed data using risk ratio (RR) and a fixed-effect model. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 11 studies. We included one trial that evaluated screening hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy, in women with unexplained subfertility, who were trying to conceive spontaneously. We are uncertain whether ongoing pregnancy rate improves following a screening hysteroscopy in women with at least two years of unexplained subfertility (RR 4.30, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.07; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 10% ongoing pregnancy rate without hysteroscopy, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in ongoing pregnancy rates between 23% and 81%. The included study reported no adverse events in either treatment arm. We are uncertain whether clinical pregnancy rate is improved (RR 3.80, 95% CI 2.31 to 6.24; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate increases (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.48; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence), following screening hysteroscopy in women with at least two years of unexplained subfertility.We included ten trials that included 1836 women who had a screening hysteroscopy and 1914 women who had no hysteroscopy prior to IVF. Main limitations in the quality of evidence were inadequate reporting of study methods and higher statistical heterogeneity. Eight of the ten trials had unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment.Performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase live birth rate (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.43; 6 RCTs; participants = 2745; I² = 69 %; low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 22% live birth rate, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in live birth rates between 25% and 32%. However, sensitivity analysis done by pooling results from trials at low risk of bias showed no increase in live birth rate following a screening hysteroscopy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; 2 RCTs; participants = 1452; I² = 0%).Only four trials reported complications following hysteroscopy; of these, three trials recorded no events in either group. We are uncertain whether a screening hysteroscopy is associated with higher adverse events (Peto odds ratio 7.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 376.42; 4 RCTs; participants = 1872; I² = not applicable; very low-quality evidence).Performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.45; 10 RCTs; participants = 3750; I² = 49%; low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 28% clinical pregnancy rate, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in clinical pregnancy rates between 33% and 40%.There may be little or no difference in miscarriage rate following screening hysteroscopy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.50; 3 RCTs; participants = 1669; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We found no trials that compared a screening hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy before IUI. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no high-quality evidence to support the routine use of hysteroscopy as a screening tool in the general population of subfertile women with a normal ultrasound or hysterosalpingogram in the basic fertility work-up for improving reproductive success rates.In women undergoing IVF, low-quality evidence, including all of the studies reporting these outcomes, suggests that performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase live birth and clinical pregnancy rates. However, pooled results from the only two trials with a low risk of bias did not show a benefit of screening hysteroscopy before IVF.Since the studies showing an effect are those with unclear allocation concealment, we are uncertain whether a routine screening hysteroscopy increases live birth and clinical pregnancy, be it for all women, or those with two or more failed IVF attempts. There is insufficient data to draw conclusions about the safety of screening hysteroscopy.

Perinatal outcomes of singleton live births with and without vanishing twin following transfer of multiple embryos: analysis of 113 784 singleton live births.

STUDY QUESTION: Does transfer of multiple embryos affect perinatal outcomes of resulting singleton live births following ART? SUMMARY ANSWER: There is a higher risk of preterm birth (PTB) and low birthweight (LBW) in singleton live births associated with spontaneous reduction of an initial multiple to singleton gestation following transfer of multiple embryos. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Singleton pregnancies following ART are at a higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes compared to spontaneous conceptions. Earlier studies have found an increased risk of PTB and LBW in singletons following transfer of multiple embryos versus single embryo transfer (SET). However, these studies did not address the specific role of vanishing twin, i.e. spontaneous reduction of an initial multiple to singleton gestation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Anonymised data on all ART cycles performed in the UK were obtained from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. Data from 1991 to 2011 involving 508 410 fresh and 131 157 frozen autologous ART cycles resulting in 95 779 and 18 005 singleton live births, respectively, were analyzed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Fresh and frozen ART cycles were analyzed separately to compare perinatal outcomes of PTB and LBW of singleton live births resulting from transfer of multiple (≥2) embryos versus SET. Logistic regression analysis was performed adjusting for confounders. Subgroup analyses were carried out for perinatal outcomes of singleton live births with initial multiple or initial single gestational sacs following transfer of multiple embryos versus singleton live births following SET. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In fresh cycles, there was a significantly higher risk of PTB (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.70, CI 2.37-3.05) and LBW (aOR 2.76, CI 2.44-3.13) in singleton live births with initial multiple gestational sacs but there was no significant difference in the risk of PTB (aOR 1.08, CI 1.00-1.16) or LBW (aOR 1.08, CI 1.00-1.16) in singleton live births with an initial single gestational sac following transfer of ≥2 embryos compared to those following SET. In frozen cycles, there was a significantly higher risk of PTB (aOR 2.13, CI: 1.55-2.93) and LBW (aOR 2.61, CI: 1.87-3.64) in singleton live births with initial multiple gestational sacs but there was no significant difference in the risk of PTB (aOR 1.02, CI: 0.88-1.18) or LBW (aOR 0.91, CI: 0.77-1.07) in the singleton live births with an initial single gestational sac following transfer of ≥2 embryos compared to those following SET. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: While the analysis was adjusted for a number of known confounders, the dataset had no information for confounders such as smoking, BMI, previous obstetric history and comorbid medical conditions during pregnancy. The lack of information about the timing of occurrence of the vanishing phenomenon is another limitation because poorer perinatal outcomes of a surviving twin have been reported following second trimester fetal demise compared to the first trimester. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The study results suggest that the vanishing twin phenomenon is associated with increased risk of PTB and LBW in the resulting singleton live births and there was no increased risk when there was a single gestational sac from the outset following transfer of multiple embryos. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Nil.

Pre-term birth and low birth weight following preimplantation genetic diagnosis: analysis of 88 010 singleton live births following PGD and IVF cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Is PGD associated with the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes such as pre-term birth (PTB) and low birth weight (LBW)? SUMMARY ANSWER: There was no increase in the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes of PTB, and LBW following PGD compared with autologous IVF. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Pregnancies resulting from ART are associated with a higher risk of pregnancy complications compared with spontaneously conceived pregnancies. The possible reason of adverse obstetric outcomes following ART has been attributed to the underlying infertility itself and embryo specific epigenetic modifications due to the IVF techniques. It is of interest whether interventions such as embryo biopsy as performed in PGD affect perinatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Anonymous data were obtained from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the statutory regulator of ART in the UK. The HFEA has collected data prospectively on all ART performed in the UK since 1991. Data from 1996 to 2011 involving a total of 88 010 singleton live births were analysed including 87 571 following autologous stimulated IVF ± ICSI and 439 following PGD cycles. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Data on all women undergoing either a stimulated fresh IVF ± ICSI treatment cycle or a PGD cycle during the period from 1996 to 2011 were analysed to compare perinatal outcomes of PTB and LBW among singleton live births. Logistic regression analysis was performed adjusting for female age category, year of treatment, previous IVF cycles, infertility diagnosis, number of oocytes retrieved, whether IVF or ICSI was used and day of embryo transfer. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There was no increase in the risk of PTB and LBW following PGD versus autologous stimulated IVF ± ICSI treatment, unadjusted odds of PTB (odds ratio (OR) 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46-0.99) and LBW (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37-0.85). After adjusting for the potential confounders, there was again no increase in the risk of the adverse perinatal outcomes following PGD: PTB (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45-0.98) and LBW (aOR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38-0.88). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the analysis was adjusted for a number of important confounders, the data set had no information on confounders such as smoking, body mass index and the medical history of women during pregnancy to allow adjustment. There was no information on the stage of embryo at biopsy, whether blastomere or trophectoderm biopsy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FINDINGS: The demonstration that PGD is not associated with higher risk of PTB and LBW provides reassurance towards its current expanding application. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was obtained. There are no competing interests to declare.

Perinatal outcomes after gestational surrogacy versus autologous IVF: analysis of national data.

Anonymized data were obtained from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority to determine whether gestational surrogacy influences perinatal outcomes compared with pregnancies after autologous IVF. A total of 103,160 singleton live births, including 244 after gestational surrogacy, 87,571 after autologous fresh IVF and intractyoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and 15,345 after autologous frozen embryo transfers were analysed. Perinatal outcomes of pretern birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW) and high birth weight (HBW) were compared. No difference was found in the risk of PTB and LBW after gestational surrogacy compared with autologous fresh IVF-ICSI: PTB (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42), LBW (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.43) and gestational surrogacy compared with autologous frozen embryo transfers: PTB (adjusted OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.60), LBW (adjusted OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.96). The incidence of HBW was significantly higher after gestational surrogacy compared with fresh IVF-ICSI (adjusted OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.75); no difference was found in HBW between gestational surrogacy and autologous frozen embryo transfers. The dataset is limited by lack of information on confounders, i.e. ethnicity, body mass index, underlying medical history, which could result in residual confounding.

Perinatal outcomes after oocyte donation and in-vitro fertilization.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To critically appraise the existing literature on perinatal outcomes following oocyte donation (OD) pregnancies and compare it with autologous in-vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies. RECENT FINDINGS: OD pregnancies are at higher risk of developing hypertensive disorders compared with autologous IVF. The risk of preterm birth and low birth weight is higher with singleton and multiple OD compared with autologous IVF pregnancies. There is no increased risk of congenital malformations following OD compared with autologous IVF births. SUMMARY: OD pregnancies are at higher risk of developing hypertensive disorders and adverse perinatal outcomes compared with autologous IVF.

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.

Chorionic villous sampling through transvaginal ultrasound approach: A retrospective analysis of 1138 cases.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a transvaginal approach for chorionic villous sampling (CVS). METHODS: We carried out a retrospective data analysis of all the transvaginal CVS procedures performed for the purpose of prenatal diagnosis in a university-level referral center between January 2000 and December 2014. Women underwent the prenatal testing between 10 and 17 weeks of gestation mainly for hematological disorders involving single gene defects. The main outcomes were successful sampling rate, maternal contamination rate, post-procedure complications rates, and immediate fetal loss rate (<14 days post-procedure). RESULTS: A total of 1138 transvaginal CVS were performed during the study period and were available for analysis. The sampling success rate after the first attempt was 98.5% (1121/1138) and the overall success rate was 99.6% (1133/1138). The maternal contamination rate was 0.4% (5/1138). While two patients had vaginal bleeding (0.2%), fresh retroplacental collection was noted in four patients (0.4%) post-procedure. None of the patients developed ascending uterine infection following CVS. The immediate fetal loss rate was 0.2% (2/1138). CONCLUSION: Transvaginal approach is associated with high sampling success, along with low rates of maternal contamination and post-procedure complications; hence, it can be offered as an effective alternative method of CVS.

Review of nonsurgical/minimally invasive treatments and open myomectomy for uterine fibroids.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The main purpose of this review is to collect the most recent evidence with regards to safety and effectiveness of the nonsurgical and minimally invasive treatment options for uterine fibroids. RECENT FINDINGS: Among the nonsurgical options, uterine artery embolization (UAE), and in eligible patients, magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) are emerging as effective alternatives to surgical options for treatment of symptomatic fibroids. MRgFUS is comparable to UAE, and appears to be a cost effective treatment option, especially in older women, although long-term data are awaited. The transvaginal route for radiofrequency ablation is a promising new nonsurgical alternative, which needs to be studied in larger trials to establish its safety and efficacy.The laparoscopic myomectomy results in less postoperative pain, reduced febrile morbidity, and shorter hospital stay when compared with open laparotomy. The newer robotic approach is comparable to traditional laparoscopic technique in short surgical outcomes but is associated with higher costs. Hysteroscopic myoma resection is an effective surgical intervention for submucous fibroids and prior misoprostol use can help in reducing cervical lacerations. SUMMARY: UAE and MRgFUS can be offered as an alternative nonsurgical option for eligible women with symptomatic fibroids. Laparoscopic myomectomy remains a safe and effective surgical option with advantage of less postoperative pain and faster recovery compared with open laparotomy for women who wish to retain their fertility options.

Uterine flushing with supernatant embryo culture medium in vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer cycles: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Does transfer of supernatant embryo culture fluid (stimulation of endometrial embryo transfer - SEET) prior to vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer result in better clinical pregnancy and live birth rates than direct vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer? METHODS: This randomized controlled trial compared SEET group and direct transfer group (control) in 60 women undergoing vitrified warmed blastocyst transfers. The duration of the study was 3 years. The patients were undergoing vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer at university level infertility centre. Sixty women were randomized to SEET (n = 30) or control (n = 30). RESULTS: Data was available for analysis from all the 30 women in the SEET group and 30 women in the control group. There were no drop outs in the trial. The implantation rate was significantly lower in the SEET group compared to the control group (27 vs. 44 %, P = 0.018). The clinical pregnancy rates were similar in both the groups (47 vs. 53 %) but the live birth rate was also significantly lower in SEET group (23 vs. 50 %, P = 0.03). LIMITATIONS: The sample size based on clinical pregnancy rates was small and hence not adequately powered to detect differences in live birth rates. Lack of blinding leading to possible bias cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of an improvement in clinical pregnancy rate following SEET in vitrified warmed blastocyst transfer compared to direct transfer.

Ovulation triggers in anovulatory women undergoing ovulation induction.

BACKGROUND: Anovulation is a common cause of infertility. Drugs used to treat anovulation include selective oestrogen receptor modulators, aromatase inhibitors and gonadotrophins. Ovulation triggers are used with these drugs, as a surrogate for the hormonal surge seen in spontaneous menstrual cycles, to control the timing of ovulation and the timing of sexual intercourse. Ovulation triggers given without reliable evidence of oocyte maturity could be inappropriately timed; they increase costs, and the need to time intercourse precisely after the ovulation trigger is given adds to psychological stress.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2008, of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of administering an ovulation trigger to anovulatory women receiving treatment with ovulation-inducing agents in comparison with spontaneous ovulation following ovulation induction. SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to November 2013. We checked conference proceedings, trial registries and reference lists and contacted researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel-group, randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the administration of an ovulation trigger to anovulatory women receiving treatment with ovulation-inducing agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed trial eligibility and trial quality and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and used the random-effects model in meta-analyses when significant heterogeneity was present. We assessed overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: No new trials were identified. This review includes two RCTs with low risk of bias that compared urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) versus no treatment in anovulatory women receiving clomiphene citrate. Urinary hCG did not result in an increase in live birth rate over no hCG (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.83; two trials, 305 participants, I(2) = 16%; low-quality evidence), but very serious imprecision around the effect estimate reduces our confidence in the apparent lack of effect of hCG as an ovulation trigger in clomiphene-induced cycles in anovulatory women.Among this review's secondary outcomes, urinary hCG may not increase ovulation rate (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.77; two trials, 305 participants, I(2) = 55%; low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.89; two trials, 305 participants, I(2) = 35%; low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rate in pregnant women (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.17 to 8.23; two trials, 54 participants, I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). Multiple pregnancies and preterm deliveries were uncommon, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, adverse events and deaths were not reported as outcomes in either trial. We found no trials evaluating other ovulation triggers. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is inadequate to recommend or refute the use of urinary hCG as an ovulation trigger in anovulatory women treated with clomiphene citrate. We found no trials evaluating the use of ovulation triggers in anovulatory women treated with other ovulation-inducing agents.

Use of modern technologies for promoting health at the population level in India.

India, with a population of 1.4 billion, faces health equity challenges due to inaccessible public health systems, particularly in rural areas. Modern technologies like the internet and mobile phones are being used to bridge this gap, enhancing health equity by disseminating vital health information. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) evaluates these technologies, influencing healthcare policy and improving health outcomes. Key strategies include digital health hubs, mobile health units, public-private partnerships, and digital tools for community health workers. To scale these interventions, capacity building, infrastructure development, community engagement, and monitoring are required. Policymakers are urged to prioritize investments in health technologies based on evidence, considering cost-effectiveness, health outcomes, and health equity. Addressing data privacy and security is crucial. Future research should focus on technology-based interventions for maternal and child health.

Digital health interventions for improving access to primary care in India: A scoping review.

Access to quality healthcare remains a challenge in low-and middle-income countries. Vulnerable populations with unmet needs face the greatest challenge in accessing primary care for appropriate and timely healthcare. The use of digital technologies can not only strengthen health systems but also improve access to health care, particularly for the vulnerable. This scoping review aims to assess the various digital health technologies and interventions available for improving access to primary care for the vulnerable in India. This scoping review employed the Joanna Brigg Institute's (JBI) guidelines and Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. The literature search was conducted in Medline/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science-Core Collection, Scopus, AgeLine, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register databases, using the keywords, such as 'Access', 'Healthcare', 'Assistive technology', 'Digital health' 'Vulnerable', 'India' and 'Healthcare technology'. A two-staged screening of titles and abstracts, followed by full-text was conducted independently by two reviewers, using the Rayyan software. Subsequently, the data was extracted from selected studies using a pre-designed and approved extraction form. The data was then synthesised and analysed narratively. The protocol for this review has been registered with open science forum (OSF) registries (https://osf.io/63pjw/). The search yielded about 3840 records, 3544 records were eligible for screening of titles and abstracts. We included seven studies after a two-round screening and identified seven different technological innovations developed to bridge gaps in access to primary care. The commonly used digital health interventions for improving access to primary care were virtual tele-health systems and mHealth applications in-built within an android smartphone or a tablet. Digital health interventions was either used as a standalone tele-health aid or a collaborative system for community workers, primary care physicians as well as the health service users. The purpose of these innovations was to increase awareness and knowledge to access support for specific aspects of healthcare. Virtual primary health care with the specialist in the hub supporting general physicians at the primary health centres in blocks and districts was another such model used for improving access to primary care. Digital health interventions was also used for mass community screening of disabilities, such as persons with hearing disability. To re-imagine a digitally empowered health systems in India, also inclusive of the vulnerable, it is important to inclusively conceptualise, systematically develop and rigorously evaluate any public health interventions including those that are enabled by digital health interventions to bridge the gaps in access to primary care in India. Such a strategy could address the paucity of evidence in public health interventions and provide sustainable strategies to strengthen health systems in India. Trial registration: Open Science Framework-Registration Link: https://osf.io/63pjw/.

Technologies that empower women for better access to healthcare in India - A scoping review.

Women from low- and middle-income countries face challenges in accessing and utilising quality healthcare. Technologies can aid in overcoming these challenges and the present scoping review is aimed at summarising the range of technologies used by women and assessing their role in enabling Indian women to learn about and access healthcare services. We conducted a comprehensive search from the date of inception of database till 2022 in PubMed and Google Scholar. Data was extracted from 43 studies and were thematically analysed. The range of technologies used by Indian women included integrated voice response system, short message services, audio-visual aids, telephone calls and mobile applications operated by health workers. Majority of the studies were community-based (79.1%), from five states (60.5%), done in rural settings (58.1%) and with interventional design (48.8%). Maternal and child health has been the major focus of studies, with lesser representation in domains of non-communicable and communicable diseases. The review also summarised barriers related to using technology - from health system and participant perspective. Technology-based interventions are enabling women to improve awareness about and accessibility to healthcare in India. Imparting digital literacy and scaling up technology use are potential solutions to scale-up healthcare access among women in India.