Socioeconomic Status and Risks of Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 39 Prospective Studies.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, increased attention has been paid to the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on cognition function and dementia, however, an ongoing debate continues to exist. The objective of our study was to explore the potential effect of SES on the risks of cognitive dysfunction and dementia. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for prospective studies from inception to 9 January 2022. Meta-analyses using random-effect models were performed, and then subgroup analyses stratified by study characteristics for specific outcomes were conducted. RESULTS: Thirty-nine prospective studies (1,485,702 individuals) were eligible for inclusion, of which 25 reported the incidence of dementia and 14 reported cognitive decline. Primary results of the meta-analyses found an elevated combined risk of cognitive impairment and dementia (relative risk [RR] = 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.16-1.49) in low-SES participants compared with high-SES participants. We also found an elevated risk of all-cause dementia (RR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12-1.74) in low-SES participants. Further subgroup analyses stratified by education, occupation, and income showed that low education subgroup (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.04-1.41) and low-income subgroup (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.10-1.35) had an increased combined risks of cognitive impairment and dementia, but only individuals with lower education had a higher risk of dementia (RR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.20-2.32). CONCLUSIONS: Low SES substantially increased the risk of dementia and cognitive dysfunction, suggesting that public health strategies could reduce the dementia burden by reducing social inequalities.

Timing of continuous renal replacement therapy in severe acute kidney injury patients with fluid overload: A retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the association of early versus late initiation of Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) with mortality in patients with fluid overload. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with fluid overload (FO) treated with CRRT due to severe acute kidney injury (AKI) between January 2015 and December 2017 in a mixed medical intensive care unit of a teaching hospital in Beijing, China. Patients were divided into early (≤15 h) and late (>15 h) groups based on the median time from ICU admission to CRRT initiation. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 60. Multivariable Cox model analysis was used for analysis. RESULTS: The study patients were male predominant (84/150) with a mean age of 64.8 ± 16.7 years. The median FO value before CRRT initiation was 10.1% [6.2-16.1%]. The 60-day mortality rates in the early vs the late CRRT groups were 53.9% and 73%, respectively. On multivariable Cox modelling, the late initiation of CRRT was independently associated with an increased risk of death at 60 days (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.11-2.74, p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Early initiation of CRRT was independently associated with survival benefits in severe AKI patients with fluid overload.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cumulative live birth rates following a 'freeze-all' strategy: a population-based study.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cumulative live birth rate following a 'freeze-all' strategy compared with a 'fresh-transfer' strategy? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 'freeze-all' strategy resulted in a similar cumulative live birth rate as the 'fresh-transfer' strategy among high responders (>15 oocytes retrieved) but did not benefit normal (10-15 oocytes) and suboptimal responders (<10 oocytes). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Frozen-thawed embryo transfer is associated with a decreased risk of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes compared with fresh embryo transfer. It is unclear whether the 'freeze-all' strategy should be offered to all women undergoing ART treatment. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A population-based retrospective cohort study using data collected by the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority. This study included 14 331 women undergoing their first stimulated ART cycle with at least one oocyte fertilised between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2014 in Victoria, Australia. Demographic characteristics, type of ART procedures and resulting pregnancy and birth outcomes were recorded for the stimulated cycle and associated thaw cycles until 30 June 2016, or until a live birth was achieved, or until all embryos from the stimulated cycle had been used. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Women were grouped by whether they had undergone the 'freeze-all' strategy (n = 1028) where all embryos were cryopreserved for future transfer, or the 'fresh-transfer' strategy (n = 13 303) where selected embryo(s) were transferred in the stimulated cycle, and remaining embryo(s) were cryopreserved for future use. A discrete-time survival model was used to evaluate the cumulative live birth rate following 'freeze-all' and 'fresh-transfer' strategy. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 1028 women undergoing 'freeze-all' strategy and 13 303 women undergoing 'fresh-transfer' strategy had 1788 and 22 334 embryo transfer cycles resulting in 452 and 5126 live births, respectively. Most women (61.3%) in the 'freeze-all' group had more than 15 oocytes retrieved in the stimulated cycle compared with 18.1% of women in the 'fresh-transfer' group (P < 0.001). For high responders (>15 oocytes), the cumulative live birth rate in the 'freeze-all' group was similar to the 'fresh-transfer' group (56.8% vs. 56.2%, adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.77-1.04). However, the likelihood of a live birth was lower in the 'freeze-all' group compared with the 'fresh-transfer' group among normal responders (10-15 oocytes) (33.2% vs. 46.3%, AHR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.83) and suboptimal responders (<10 oocytes) (14.6% vs. 28.0%, AHR 0.67, 95% CI 0.14-1.01). During the minimum follow-up time of 2 years, 34.1%, 24.4% and 8.4% of suboptimal, normal and high responders, respectively, in the 'freeze-all' group did not return for any embryo transfer after the stimulated cycle, whereas all women in the 'fresh-transfer' group had at least one embryo transferred in the stimulated cycle. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation of this population-based study is the lack of information available on clinic-specific protocols for the 'freeze-all' strategy and the potential impact of these on outcomes. Data were not available on whether the 'freeze-all' strategy was used to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study presents population-based evidence on clinical efficacy associated with a 'freeze-all' and 'fresh-transfer' strategy. The 'freeze-all' strategy may benefit some subgroups of patients, including women who are high responders and those who are at risk of OHSS, but should not be offered universally. Clinicians should consider the potential impact of electively deferring embryo transfer on treatment discontinuation in choosing the optimal embryo transfer strategy for couples undergoing ART treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No specific funding was received to undertake this study. There is no conflict of interest, except that M.B. is a shareholder in Genea Ltd.

ICSI does not increase the cumulative live birth rate in non-male factor infertility.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cumulative live birth rate following ICSI cycles compared with IVF cycles for couples with non-male factor infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: ICSI resulted in a similar cumulative live birth rate compared with IVF for couples with non-male factor infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The ICSI procedure was developed for couples with male factor infertility. There has been an increased use of ICSI regardless of the cause of infertility. Cycle-based statistics show that there is no difference in pregnancy rates between ICSI and IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility. However, evidence indicates that ICSI is associated with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A population-based cohort of 14 693 women, who had their first ever stimulated cycle with fertilization performed for at least one oocyte by either IVF or ICSI between July 2009 and June 2014 in Victoria, Australia was evaluated retrospectively. The pregnancy and birth outcomes following IVF or ICSI were recorded for the first oocyte retrieval (fresh stimulated cycle and associated thaw cycles) until 30 June 2016, or until a live birth was achieved, or until all embryos from the first oocyte retrieval had been used. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Demographic, treatment characteristics and resulting outcome data were obtained from the Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority. Data items in the VARTA dataset were collected from all fertility clinics in Victoria. Women were grouped by whether they had undergone IVF or ICSI. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate, which was defined as live deliveries (at least one live birth) per woman after the first oocyte retrieval. A discrete-time survival model was used to evaluate the cumulative live birth rate following IVF and ICSI. The adjustment was made for year of treatment in which fertilization occurred, the woman's and male partner's age at first stimulated cycle, parity and the number of oocytes retrieved in the first stimulated cycle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 4993 women undergoing IVF and 8470 women undergoing ICSI had 7980 and 13 092 embryo transfers, resulting in 1848 and 3046 live deliveries, respectively. About one-fifth of the women (19.0% of the IVF group versus 17.9% of the ICSI group) had three or more cycles during the study period. For couples who achieved a live delivery, the median time from oocyte retrieval to live delivery was 8.9 months in both IVF (range: 4.2-66.5) and ICSI group (range: 4.5-71.3) (P = 0.474). Fertilization rate per oocyte retrieval was higher in the IVF than in the ICSI group (59.8 versus 56.2%, P < 0.001). The overall cumulative live birth rate was 37.0% for IVF and 36.0% for ICSI. The overall likelihood of a live birth for women undergoing ICSI was not significantly different to that for women undergoing IVF (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 0.99, 95% CI: 0.92-1.06). For couples with a known cause of infertility, non-male factor infertility (female factor only or unexplained infertility) was reported for 64.0% in the IVF group and 36.8% in the ICSI group (P < 0.001). Among couples with non-male factor infertility, ICSI resulted in a similar cumulative live birth rate compared with IVF (AHR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.85-1.10). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Data were not available on clinic-specific protocols and processes for IVF and ICSI and the potential impact of these technique aspects on clinical outcomes. The reported causes of infertility were based on the treating clinician's classification which may vary between clinicians. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This population-based study found ICSI resulted in a lower fertilization rate per oocyte retrieved and a similar cumulative live birth rate compared to conventional IVF. These data suggest that ICSI offers no advantage over conventional IVF in terms of live birth rate for couples with non-male factor infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No specific funding was received to undertake this study. There is no conflict of interest, except that M.B. is a shareholder in Genea Ltd. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

ING5 activity in self-renewal of glioblastoma stem cells via calcium and follicle stimulating hormone pathways.

Stem cell-like brain tumor initiating cells (BTICs) cause recurrence of glioblastomas, with BTIC 'stemness' affected by epigenetic mechanisms. The ING family of epigenetic regulators (ING1-5) function by targeting histone acetyltransferase (HAT) or histone deacetylase complexes to the H3K4me3 mark to alter histone acetylation and subsequently, gene expression. Here we find that ectopic expression of ING5, the targeting subunit of HBO1, MOZ and MORF HAT complexes increases expression of the Oct4, Olig2 and Nestin stem cell markers, promotes self-renewal, prevents lineage differentiation and increases stem cell pools in BTIC populations. This activity requires the plant homeodomain region of ING5 that interacts specifically with the H3K4me3 mark. ING5 also enhances PI3K/AKT and MEK/ERK activity to sustain self-renewal of BTICs over serial passage of stem cell-like spheres. ING5 exerts these effects by activating transcription of calcium channel and follicle stimulating hormone pathway genes. In silico analyses of The Cancer Genome Atlas data suggest that ING5 is a positive regulator of BTIC stemness, whose expression negatively correlates with patient prognosis, especially in the Proneural and Classical subtypes, and in tumors with low SOX2 expression. These data suggest that altering histone acetylation status and signaling pathways induced by ING5 may provide useful clinical strategies to target tumor resistance and recurrence in glioblastoma.

A protocol developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set for infertility.

STUDY QUESTIONS: We aim to produce, disseminate and implement a core outcome set for future infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating infertility treatments have reported many different outcomes, which are often defined and measured in different ways. Such variation contributes to an inability to compare, contrast and combine results of individual RCTs. The development of a core outcome set will ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are consistently collected and reported across future infertility research. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is a consensus study using the modified Delphi method. All stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, researchers and people with lived experience of infertility will be invited to participate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: An international steering group, including people with lived experience of infertility, healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals and researchers, has been formed to guide the development of this core outcome set. Potential core outcomes have been identified through a comprehensive literature review of RCTs evaluating treatments for infertility and will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Participants will be asked to score potential core outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale anchored between one (not important) and nine (critical). Repeated reflection and rescoring should promote convergence towards consensus 'core' outcomes. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This project is funded by the Royal Society of New Zealand Catalyst Fund (3712235). BWM reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, Merck, and ObsEva. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Fractyl and Ogeda and research sponsorship from Ferring. S.B. is the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Dwell time and risk of central-line-associated bloodstream infection in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Umbilical venous catheters (UVCs) or peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), widely used in high-risk neonates, may have a threshold dwell time for subsequent increased risk of central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). AIM: To evaluate the CLABSI risks in neonates having either UVC, PICC, or those having both sequentially. METHODS: The study included 3985 infants who had UVC or PICC inserted between 2007 and 2009 cared for in 10 regional neonatal intensive care units: 1392 having UVC only (group 1), 1317 PICC only (group 2), and 1276 both UVC and PICC (group 3). FINDINGS: There were 403 CLABSIs among 6000 venous catheters inserted, totalling 43,302 catheter-days. CLABSI rates were higher in group 3 infants who were of lowest gestation (16.9 per 1000 UVC-days and 12.5 per 1000 PICC-days; median: 28 weeks) when compared with group 1 (3.3 per 1000 UVC-days; 37 weeks) and group 2 (4.8 per 1000 PICC-days; 30 weeks). Life table and Kaplan-Meier hazard analysis showed that UVC CLABSI rate increased stepwise to 42 per 1000 UVC-days by day 10, with the highest rate in group 3 (85 per 1000 UVC-days). PICC CLABSI rates remained relatively stable at 12-20 per 1000 PICC-days. Compared to PICC, UVC had a higher adjusted CLABSI risk controlled for dwell time. Among group 3, replacing UVC electively before day 4 may have a trend of lower CLABSI risk than late replacement. CONCLUSION: There was no cut-off duration beyond which PICC should be removed electively. Early UVC removal and replacement by PICC before day 4 might be considered.

HIFs-MiR-33a-Twsit1 axis can regulate invasiveness of hepatocellular cancer cells.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated whether miR-33a downregulation in HCC is a result of hypoxia-inducible factors (HIFs) overexpression. Then, we further studied the regulative effects of miR-33a on Twist1 and their regulation in HCC cell invasiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Human hepatocellular cancer (HCC) cell lines (HepG2 and BEL-7402) were transfected with miR-33a mimics, HIFs siRNA or Twist1 siRNA. MiR-33a level was measured using QRT-PCR. The binding between miR-33a and Twist1 3'UTR was verified using Western blot analysis and dual luciferase assay. E-cadherin and N-cadherin expression levels were detected by western blot analysis. Tumor cell invasion was assessed using transwell assay. RESULTS: MiR-33a downregulation in HCC cells is hypoxia-induced and is a result of HIFs upregulation. HIF-1α and HIF-2α suppression partly rescued miR-33a expression under hypoxia. Both HepG2 and BEL-7402 cells with miR-33a overexpression had significantly decreased E-cadherin expression and increased N-cadherin level. Transwell analysis confirmed that miR-33a overexpression significantly suppressed the tumor cell invasion capability. Twist1 is a direct target of miR-33a in HCC. HepG2 cells with Twist1 knockdown had significantly increased E-cadherin, decreased N-cadherin and suppressed invasion capability. CONCLUSIONS: MiR-33a downregulation in HCC cells is hypoxia-induced and is a result of HIFs upregulation. MiR-33a can modulate EMT and invasion of hepatocellular cancer cells at least partly via downregulating Twist1.

GAS5 is downregulated in gastric cancer cells by promoter hypermethylation and regulates adriamycin sensitivity.

OBJECTIVE: GAS5 is a tumor suppressive lncRNA that is downregulated in gastric cancer. In this study, we firstly investigated whether epigenetic regulation contributed to GAS5 downregulation and further investigated the role of GAS5 in Adriamycin (ADM) sensitivity in gastric cancer cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: GAS5 expression in 15 paired gastric cancer tissues and adjacent normal tissues and in gastric cancer cells were detected using qRT-PCR. Methylation-Specific PCR (MSP) was performed with the use of 5-AZA-dC to detect the methylation status of GAS5 promoter. SGC-7901 and SGC-7901/ADM cells were transfected for GAS5 overexpression and were further used for analysis of ADM sensitivity. RESULTS: GAS5 expression was significantly downregulated in gastric cancer tissues and cancer cell lines and was further downregulated in ADM resistant cells. SGC-7901/ADM cells had significantly higher level of promoter methylation than SGC-7901 cells. 5-AZA-dC treatment significantly reduced the level of methylation and restored GAS5 expression in both SGC-7901 and SGC-7901/ADM cells. SGC-7901/ADM cells with enforced GAS5 expression had significantly decreased the growth rate and increased the ratio of apoptosis after ADM treatment, suggesting that GAS5 can sensitize gastric cancer cells to ADM. CONCLUSIONS: GAS5 is significantly downregulated in gastric cancer cells and further decreased in ADM resistant cancer cells at least partly due to promoter hypermethylation. The enforced GAS5 expression can sensitize gastric cancer cells to ADM.

Three-step method for the amplification of the coxsackievirus A10 genome.

The whole-genome sequencing of coxsackievirus (CV)-A10 does not follow a conventional experimental protocol. To fully understand the genetic variation and evolution of CV-A10, complete genome amplification is necessary. Most previous studies have concentrated on partial sequences of the CV-A10 genome, such as the VP1 gene. The few studies that have investigated CV-A10 at the genomic level have reported only two complete genome sequences to GenBank. The basic fault may be attributed to the regional nature of the genetics and evolution of CV-A10 and to the lack of laboratory procedures for obtaining the genomes. In this study, we present a robust "three-step" protocol performed with A105UF/A820, EVP4/A6141, and A4879/A1005R for the full-length genome amplification of CV-A10. The results revealed that the method is able to accurately and reproducibly amplify three fragments with overlaps of the full-length genome of eight CV-A10 strains. Compared with other methods, this assay is both quick and specific. In addition, the three-step protocol could be capable of amplifying the full-length genomes of CV-A10 strains isolated from different countries and regions. The specific three-step protocol may be particularly useful for investigating samples co-infected with CV-A10 and other viruses.

A novel regulatory function for miR-29a in keloid fibrogenesis.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence has shown that microRNA-29 (miR-29) plays a central role in the progression of fibrosis. However, the mechanisms underlying the role of miR-29 in keloid fibrogenesis remain unknown. AIM: To investigate the roles of miR-29 in dermal fibroblasts in the pathogenesis of keloids. METHODS: Primary fibroblasts from 9 patients with keloid and 6 healthy controls (HCs) were cultured and pretreated with transforming growth factor (TGF)-ß1. Next, fibroblasts were transfected with precursor miRNA and anti-miR-29a miRNA. TGF-ß1-associated miR-29 alterations were investigated by quantitative real-time PCR. Collagen I and collagen III protein levels were analysed by western blotting. RESULTS: miR-29a, miR-29b and miR-29c levels were significantly lower in keloid compared with healthy fibroblasts (P < 0.05), and in particular, miR-29a was especially markedly reduced (P < 0.001). Type I and type III collagen mRNA and protein levels were decreased in keloid fibroblasts transfected with pre-miR-29a (P < 0.05), whereas knockdown with anti-miR-29a increased type I and type III collagen mRNA and protein expression (P < 0.05) in the fibroblasts. Interestingly, pretreatment of fibroblasts with TGF-ß1 significantly decreased miR-29a (P < 0.05), whereas miR-29b and miR-29c were reduced to a lesser extent, which was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that miR-29a exerts as a novel regulator in the fibrogenesis of keloid, suggesting that miR-29a might be a novel marker for keloid.