Obesity intervention evidence synthesis: Where are the gaps and which should we address first?

Health professionals and policymakers rely on evidence synthesized from high quality research studies. Yet, there remain unanswered questions about how to prevent and treat obesity. In this research project, international practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews were examined in order to identify gaps in the synthesized obesity intervention evidence base. One hundred and forty-two partial or complete gaps were found. Systematic review questions to address these gaps were formulated and subjected to a prioritization consultation process with 36 international obesity expert stakeholders. Forty-three review questions were priority-assessed. The top 10 ranked review questions received support from at least 75.0% of stakeholders. The leading questions focused on preventive and community-based approaches, including those delivered through primary-care. Children within the context of their families were a highly-prioritized target group, as were persons with diabetes or disabilities. Experts also prioritized reviews to determine which elements of programs are the most effective, and by which mode they are best delivered. Experts recommended that negative, psycho-social, and longer-term outcomes be captured in reviews. We request reviewers and funders to strongly consider addressing the top 10 leading prioritized review questions presented here.

IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation for unexplained infertility: a collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: IVF and IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) are widely used in managing unexplained infertility. IUI-OS is generally considered first-line therapy, followed by IVF only if IUI-OS is unsuccessful after several attempts. However, there is a growing interest in using IVF for immediate treatment because it is believed to lead to higher live birth rates and shorter time to pregnancy. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVF versus IUI-OS had varied study designs and findings. Some RCTs used complex algorithms to combine IVF and IUI-OS, while others had unequal follow-up time between arms or compared treatments on a per-cycle basis, which introduced biases. Comparing cumulative live birth rates of IVF and IUI-OS within a consistent time frame is necessary for a fair head-to-head comparison. Previous meta-analyses of RCTs did not consider the time it takes to achieve pregnancy, which is not possible using aggregate data. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) allows standardization of follow-up time in different trials and time-to-event analysis methods. We performed this IPD-MA to investigate if IVF increases cumulative live birth rate considering the time leading to pregnancy and reduces multiple pregnancy rate compared to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register to identify RCTs that completed data collection before June 2021. A search update was carried out in January 2023. RCTs that compared IVF/ICSI to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility were eligible. We invited author groups of eligible studies to join the IPD-MA and share the deidentified IPD of their RCTs. IPD were checked and standardized before synthesis. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. OUTCOMES: Of eight potentially eligible RCTs, two were considered awaiting classification. In the other six trials, four shared IPD of 934 women, of which 550 were allocated to IVF and 383 to IUI-OS. Because the interventions were unable to blind, two RCTs had a high risk of bias, one had some concerns, and one had a low risk of bias. Considering the time to pregnancy leading to live birth, the cumulative live birth rate was not significantly higher in IVF compared to that in IUI-OS (4 RCTs, 908 women, 50.3% versus 43.2%, hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.81-1.74, I2 = 42.4%). For the safety primary outcome, the rate of multiple pregnancy was not significantly lower in IVF than IUI-OS (3 RCTs, 890 women, 3.8% versus 5.2% of all couples randomized, odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.41-1.50, I2 = 0.0%). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: There is no robust evidence that in couples with unexplained infertility IVF achieves pregnancy leading to live birth faster than IUI-OS. IVF and IUI-OS are both viable options in terms of effectiveness and safety for managing unexplained infertility. The associated costs of interventions and the preference of couples need to be weighed in clinical decision-making.

Combined oral contraceptive pill for primary dysmenorrhoea.

BACKGROUND: Dysmenorrhoea (painful menstrual cramps) is common and a major cause of pain in women. Combined oral contraceptives (OCPs) are often used in the management of primary dysmenorrhoea, but there is a need for reporting the benefits and harms. Primary dysmenorrhoea is defined as painful menstrual cramps without pelvic pathology. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of combined oral contraceptive pills for the management of primary dysmenorrhoea. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date 28 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing all combined OCPs with other combined OCPs, placebo, or management with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Participants had to have primary dysmenorrhoea, diagnosed by ruling out pelvic pathology through pelvic examination or ultrasound. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were pain score after treatment, improvement in pain, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 RCTs (3723 women). Eleven RCTs compared combined OCP with placebo, eight compared different dosages of combined OCP, one compared two OCP regimens with placebo, and one compared OCP with NSAIDs. OCP versus placebo or no treatment OCPs reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than placebo. Six studies reported treatment effects on different scales; the result can be interpreted as a moderate reduction in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.74 to -0.41; I² = 28%; 6 RCTs, 588 women; high-quality evidence). Six studies also reported pain improvement as a dichotomous outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.10; I² = 69%; 6 RCTs, 717 women; low-quality evidence). The data suggest that in women with a 28% chance of improvement in pain with placebo or no treatment, the improvement in women using combined OCP will be between 37% and 60%. Compared to placebo or no treatment, OCPs probably increase the risk of any adverse events (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.43; I² = 79%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; moderate-quality evidence), and may also increase the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 6.43; I² = 22%; 4 RCTs, 512 women; low-quality evidence). Women who received OCPs had an increased risk of irregular bleeding compared to women who received placebo or no treatment (RR 2.63, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.28; I² = 29%; 7 RCTs, 1025 women; high-quality evidence). In women with a risk of irregular bleeding of 18% if using placebo or no treatment, the risk would be between 39% and 60% if using combined OCP. OCPs probably increase the risk of headaches (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04; I² = 44%; 5 RCTs, 656 women; moderate-quality evidence), and nausea (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.30; I² = 39%; 8 RCTs, 948 women; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of OCP on weight gain (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.45; 1 RCT, 76 women; low-quality evidence). OCPs may slightly reduce requirements for additional medication (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 163 women; low-quality evidence), and absence from work (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 148 women; low-quality evidence). One OCP versus another OCP Continuous use of OCPs (no pause or inactive tablets after the usual 21 days of hormone pills) may reduce pain in women with dysmenorrhoea more effectively than the standard regimen (SMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.34; 2 RCTs, 106 women; low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a difference in pain improvement between ethinylestradiol 20 µg and ethinylestradiol 30 µg OCPs (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.74; 1 RCT, 326 women; moderate-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between third- and fourth-generation and first- and second-generation OCPs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 178 women; moderate-quality evidence). The standard regimen of OCPs may slightly increase the risk of any adverse events over the continuous regimen (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22; I² = 76%; 3 RCTs, 602 women; low-quality evidence), and probably increases the risk of irregular bleeding (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.69; 2 RCTs, 379 women; moderate-quality evidence). Due to lack of studies, it is uncertain if there is a difference between continuous and standard regimen OCPs in serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.24; 1 RCT, 212 women), headaches (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.76; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 435 women), or nausea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.30; I² = 23%; 2 RCTs, 435 women) (all very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if one type of OCP reduces absence from work more than the other (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.99; 1 RCT, 445 women; very low-quality evidence). OCPs versus NSAIDs There were insufficient data to determine whether OCPs were more effective than NSAIDs for pain (mean difference -0.30, 95% CI -5.43 to 4.83; 1 RCT, 91 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report on adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: OCPs are effective for treating dysmenorrhoea, but they cause irregular bleeding, and probably headache and nausea. Long-term effects were not covered in this review. Continuous use of OCPs was probably more effective than the standard regimen but safety should be ensured with long-term data. Due to lack of data, we are uncertain whether NSAIDs are better than OCPs for treating dysmenorrhoea.

Endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In IVF/ICSI treatment, the process of embryo implantation is the success rate-limiting step. Endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve this process, but it is unclear if this procedure increases the chance of implantation and live birth (LB) and, if so, for whom, and how the scratch should be performed. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aims to answer the question of whether endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI influences the chance of a LB, and whether this effect is different in specific subgroups of women. After its incidental discovery in 2000, endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve embryo implantation. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted, showing contradicting results. Conventional meta-analyses were limited by high within- and between-study heterogeneity, small study samples, and a high risk of bias for many of the trials. Also, the data integrity of several trials have been questioned. Thus, despite numerous RCTs and a multitude of conventional meta-analyses, no conclusion on the clinical effectiveness of endometrial scratching could be drawn. An IPD-MA approach is able to overcome many of these problems because it allows for increased uniformity of outcome definitions, can filter out studies with data integrity concerns, enables a more precise estimation of the true treatment effect thanks to adjustment for participant characteristics and not having to make the assumptions necessary in conventional meta-analyses, and because it allows for subgroup analysis. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic literature search identified RCTs on endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Authors of eligible studies were invited to share original data for this IPD-MA. Studies were assessed for risk of bias (RoB) and integrity checks were performed. The primary outcome was LB, with a one-stage intention to treat (ITT) as the primary analysis. Secondary analyses included as treated (AT), and the subset of women that underwent an embryo transfer (AT+ET). Treatment-covariate interaction for specific participant characteristics was analyzed in AT+ET. OUTCOMES: Out of 37 published and 15 unpublished RCTs (7690 participants), 15 RCTs (14 published, one unpublished) shared data. After data integrity checks, we included 13 RCTs (12 published, one unpublished) representing 4112 participants. RoB was evaluated as 'low' for 10/13 RCTs. The one-stage ITT analysis for scratch versus no scratch/sham showed an improvement of LB rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.29 [95% CI 1.02-1.64]). AT, AT+ET, and low-RoB-sensitivity analyses yielded similar results (OR 1.22 [95% CI 0.96-1.54]; OR 1.25 [95% CI 0.99-1.57]; OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.03-1.55], respectively). Treatment-covariate interaction analysis showed no evidence of interaction with age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, or infertility cause. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This is the first meta-analysis based on IPD of more than 4000 participants, and it demonstrates that endometrial scratching may improve LB rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Subgroup analysis for age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, and infertility cause could not identify subgroups in which endometrial scratching performed better or worse. The timing of endometrial scratching may play a role in its effectiveness. The use of endometrial scratching in clinical practice should be considered with caution, meaning that patients should be properly counseled on the level of evidence and the uncertainties.

Standardising outcome reporting for clinical trials of interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding: Development of a core outcome set.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a core outcome set for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). DESIGN: Core outcome set (COS) development methodology described by the COMET initiative. SETTING: University hospital gynaecology department, online international survey and web-based international consensus meetings. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: An international collaboration of stakeholders (clinicians, patients, academics, guideline developers) from 20 countries and 6 continents. METHODS: Phase 1: Systematic review of previously reported outcomes to identify potential core outcomes. Phase 2: Qualitative studies with patients to identify outcomes most important to them. Phase 3: Online two-round Delphi survey to achieve consensus about which outcomes are most important. Phase 4: A consensus meeting to finalise the COS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome importance was assessed in the Delphi survey on a 9-point scale. RESULTS: From the 'long list' of 114, 10 outcomes were included in the final COS: subjective blood loss; flooding; menstrual cycle metrics; severity of dysmenorrhoea; number of days with dysmenorrhoea; quality of life; adverse events; patient satisfaction; number of patients going on to have further treatment for HMB and haemoglobin level. CONCLUSIONS: The final COS includes variables that are feasible for use in clinical trials in all resource settings and apply to all known underlying causes of the symptom of HMB. These outcomes should be reported in all future trials of interventions, their systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines to underpin policy.

Aromatase inhibitors (letrozole) for ovulation induction in infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of infrequent periods (oligomenorrhoea) and absence of periods (amenorrhoea). It affects about 5% to 20% of women worldwide and often leads to anovulatory infertility. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a class of drugs that were introduced for ovulation induction in 2001. Since about 2001 clinical trials have reached differing conclusions as to whether the AI, letrozole, is at least as effective as the first-line treatment clomiphene citrate (CC), a selective oestrogen receptor modulator (SERM). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of AIs (letrozole) (with or without adjuncts) compared to SERMs (with or without adjuncts) for infertile women with anovulatory PCOS for ovulation induction followed by timed intercourse or intrauterine insemination. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources, from their inception to 4 November 2021, to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. We also checked reference lists of relevant trials, searched the trial registers and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. We did not restrict the searches by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs of AIs used alone or with other medical therapies for ovulation induction in women of reproductive age with anovulatory PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted the data and assessed risks of bias using RoB 1. We pooled trials where appropriate using a fixed-effect model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for most outcomes, and risk differences (RDs) for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The primary outcomes were live birth rate and OHSS rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for each comparison using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: This is a substantive update of a previous review; of six previously included trials, we excluded four from this update and moved two to 'awaiting classification' due to concerns about validity of trial data. We included five additional trials for this update that now includes a total of 41 RCTs (6522 women). The AI, letrozole, was used in all trials. Letrozole compared to SERMs with or without adjuncts followed by timed intercourse Live birth rates were higher with letrozole (with or without adjuncts) compared to SERMs followed by timed intercourse (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.11; I2 = 0%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 10; 11 trials, 2060 participants; high-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 20% chance of live birth using SERMs, the live birth rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 27% to 35%. There is high-certainty evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or SERMs (0.5% in both arms: risk difference (RD) -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 0%; 10 trials, 1848 participants; high-certainty evidence). There is evidence for a higher pregnancy rate in favour of letrozole (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.98; I2 = 0%; NNTB = 10; 23 trials, 3321 participants; high-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 24% chance of clinical pregnancy using SERMs, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 32% to 39%. There is little or no difference between treatment groups in the rate of miscarriage per pregnancy (25% with SERMs versus 24% with letrozole: OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 15 trials, 736 participants; high-certainty evidence) and multiple pregnancy rate (2.2% with SERMs versus 1.6% with letrozole: OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 14 trials, 2247 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, a funnel plot showed mild asymmetry, indicating that some trials in favour of SERMs might be missing.  Letrozole compared to laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) One trial reported very low-certainty evidence that live birth rates may be higher with letrozole compared to LOD (OR 2.07, 95% CI 0.99 to 4.32; 1 trial, 141 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 22% chance of live birth using LOD with or without adjuncts, the live birth rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 24% to 47%. No trial reported OHSS rates. Due to the low-certainty evidence we are uncertain if letrozole improves pregnancy rates compared to LOD (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.28; I² = 0%; 3 trials, 367 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that in women with a 29% chance of clinical pregnancy using LOD with or without adjuncts, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using letrozole with or without adjuncts would be 28% to 45%. There seems to be no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates per pregnancy comparing letrozole to LOD (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.92; I² = 0%; 3 trials, 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). This also applies to multiple pregnancies (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.90; 1 trial, 141 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Letrozole appears to improve live birth rates and pregnancy rates in infertile women with anovulatory PCOS, compared to SERMs, when used for ovulation induction, followed by intercourse. There is high-certainty evidence that OHSS rates are similar with letrozole or SERMs. There was high-certainty evidence of no difference in miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate. We are uncertain if letrozole increases live birth rates compared to LOD. In this update, we added good quality trials and removed trials with concerns over data validity, thereby upgrading the certainty of the evidence base.

Surveys of clinician and patient attitudes to an add-on for in vitro fertilisation.

BACKGROUND: Add-ons at the time of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) have become commonplace, despite a general lack of evidence that they are effective and safe. The 'Colorado Protocol' is a commonly used add-on consisting of aspirin, steroid and an antibiotic. Before commencing planning for a clinical trial evaluating the Colorado Protocol, researchers and funders need evidence that the Colorado Protocol is being prescribed, and to be assured that sufficient numbers of participants can be recruited for a clinical trial. AIMS: To survey fertility clinicians and patients on attitudes toward use of add-ons during IVF, willingness of patients to be randomly assigned to an add-on trial treatment or placebo, and what would be the clinically meaningful outcomes, using the Colorado Protocol as a test case. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two online surveys were conducted: clinicians from fertility clinics across the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand; and patients from Auckland-based clinics and NZ patient support groups. RESULTS: Of 58 clinicians, 44 (75%) had recommended an add-on within the preceding year. Thirty-nine (67%) clinicians were aware of the Colorado Protocol, with 17 (29%) having recommended it within the preceding year. Of the 289 patients, 80% indicated willingness to take trial medications during IVF, and 68% were willing to be randomly assigned to the placebo arm of a trial. The median perceived minimum clinically important difference in live births in both samples was 5%. CONCLUSIONS: A future trial of this add-on in IVF would be supported by patients in the context of the New Zealand fertility healthcare system.

Interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding; overview of Cochrane reviews and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences. OBJECTIVES: To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB. METHODS: We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.

New research questions identified for Cochrane reviews: a cross-sectional study of a specialized register: part two: fertility.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this project was to identify gaps and research waste in the dissemination of fertility evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study of The Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility (CGF) Group's specialized register of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included trials on fertility problems published in 2010 and 2011. These trials were matched, by the condition and treatment, to existing CSRs. Unmatched trials were analyzed to prioritize new review titles. RESULTS: We exported 564 trials from the CGF specialized register and found that 115 (23%) of these could be included in an existing CSR if these were updated while 72 trials (14%) were not matched to any review topic, and from these, eight new Cochrane review titles were developed. The topic with the largest number of associated 'unused' trials was 'Traditional Chinese medicine for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques'. CONCLUSION: This project found that 14% of fertility trials were 'unused' and from these we identified new review topics and identified those reviews that need to be updated, thereby identifying the gaps in evidence for people with infertility.

New research questions identified for Cochrane reviews: a cross-sectional study of a specialized register: part one: gynecology.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this project was to identify gaps and research waste in the dissemination of gynecology evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study of the Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility (CGF) Group's specialized register of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included trials on benign gynecological conditions, published in 2010 and 2011. These trials were matched, by the condition and treatment, to existing Cochrane reviews. Unmatched trials were analysed to prioritize new review titles. RESULTS: After exporting 740 trials from the CGF specialized register, we found that 192 (26%) could be included in an existing CSR if it was updated, whereas 230 trials (32%) were not matched to any review title, and from these, we developed 21 new review titles. The topic with the largest number of associated 'unused' trials was 'Plant and herbal extracts for symptoms of menopause'. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a third of the benign gynecology trials published in 2010 and 2011 had no associated CSR. After identifying new topics from unmatched trials, we developed new CSR titles. This study identified the gaps in the evidence for women with gynecological problems.

Outcome reporting across randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male infertility: a systematic review.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the primary outcomes and outcome measures used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating potential treatments for male infertility in the last 10 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: Outcome reporting across male infertility trials is heterogeneous with numerous definitions and measures used to define similar outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: No core outcome set for male infertility trials has been developed. Male infertility trials are unique in that they have potentially three participants, a man, a female partner and their offspring and this will likely lead to significant variation in outcome reporting in randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A systematic review of RCTs mapping outcomes and outcome measures evaluating potential treatments for men with infertility registered in the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 2010 and July 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Abstract screening and study selection was undertaken in duplicate using a review protocol that was developed prior to commencing the review. No risk of bias assessment was undertaken as this review aims to report on outcome reporting only. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: One hundred and seventy-five RCTs were identified, and given the large number of studies we limited our review to the 100 largest trials. Seventy-nine different treatments were reported across the 100 largest RCTs including vitamin and dietary supplements (18 trials), surgical treatments (18 trials) and sperm selection techniques (22 trials). When considering the largest 100 trials (range: 80-2772 participants), 36 primary and 89 secondary outcomes were reported. Forty-seven trials reported a primary outcome and 36 trials clearly defined their primary outcome. Pregnancy outcomes were inconsistently reported and included pregnancy rate (51 trials), pregnancy loss including miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth (9 trials) and live birth (13 trials). Trials consistently reporting the same outcome frequently used different definitions. For example, semen quality was reported by 75 trials and was defined in 7 different ways, including; the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 criteria (32 trials), WHO 1999 criteria (18 trials), WHO 1992 criteria (3 trials), WHO 1999 and 1992 criteria (1 trial) and the Kruger strict morphology criteria (1 trial). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only evaluated the 100 largest trials published in the last 10 years and did not report outcomes on the remaining 75. An outcome was included as a primary outcome only if clearly stated in the manuscript and we did not contact authors to clarify this. As our review mapped outcomes and outcome measures, we did not undertake an integrity assessment of the trials included in our review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Most randomized trials evaluating treatments for male infertility report different outcomes. Only half of the RCTs reported pregnancy rate and even fewer reported live birth; furthermore, the definitions of these outcomes varies across trials. Developing, disseminating and implementing a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for male infertility research could help to improve outcome selection, collection and reporting. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: A.P.-chairman of external scientific advisory committee of Cryos International Denmark ApS, member of the scientific advisory board for Cytoswim LDT and ExSeed Health. Guest lecture at the 'Insights for Fertility Conference', funded by MERK SERONO Limited. M.v.W.-holds a ZON-MW research grant. No external funding was obtained for this study.

Pregnancy and birth outcomes of single versus multiple embryo transfer in gestational surrogacy arrangements: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Multiple embryo transfer (MET) is associated with both an increased risk of multiple pregnancy and of live birth. In recent years, MET has become standard practice for most surrogacy arrangements. There is limited review of the use of MET versus single embryo transfer (SET) in surrogacy practice. The present review systematically evaluated the pregnancy outcomes of surrogacy arrangements between MET versus SET among gestational carriers. A systematic search of five computerized databases without restriction to the English language or study type was conducted to evaluate the primary outcomes: (i) clinical pregnancy; (ii) live delivery; and (iii) multiple delivery rates. The search returned 97 articles, five of which met the inclusion criteria. The results showed that clinical pregnancy (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.06-1.39, n = 5, I2 = 41%), live delivery (RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.10-1.51, n = 4, I2 = 35%) and multiple delivery rates (RR = 1.42, 95% CI: 6.58-69.73, n = 4, I2 = 54%) were statistically significantly different in MET compared to SET. Adverse events including miscarriage, preterm birth and low birthweight were found following MET. Our findings support the existing evidence that MET results in multiple pregnancy and subsequently more adverse outcomes compared to SET. From a public health perspective, SET should be advocated as the preferred treatment for gestational carriers.

IVF add-ons in Australia and New Zealand: A systematic assessment of IVF clinic websites.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) 'add-ons' are extra (non-essential) procedures, techniques or medicines, which usually claim to increase the chance of a successful IVF outcome. Use of IVF add-ons is believed to be widespread in many settings; however, information about add-on availability in Australasia is lacking. AIMS: To understand which add-ons are advertised on Australasian IVF clinic websites, and what is the evidence for their benefit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic assessment of website content was undertaken between December 2019-April 2020, capturing IVF add-ons advertised, including costs, claims of benefit, statements of risk or limitations, and evidence of effectiveness for improving live birth and pregnancy. A literature review assessed the strength and quality of evidence for each add-on. RESULTS: Of the 40 included IVF clinics websites, 31 (78%) listed one or more IVF add-ons. A total of 21 different add-ons or add-on groups were identified, the most common being preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (offered by 63% of clinics), time-lapse systems (33%) and assisted hatching (28%). In most cases (77%), descriptions of the IVF add-ons were accompanied by claims of benefit. Most claims (90%) were not quantified and very few referenced scientific publications to support the claims (9.8%). None of the add-ons were supported by high-quality evidence of benefit for pregnancy or live birth rates. The cost of IVF add-ons varied from $0 to $3700 (AUD/NZD). CONCLUSIONS: There is widespread advertising of add-ons on IVF clinic websites, which report benefits for add-ons that are not supported by high-quality evidence.

GM-CSF (granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor) supplementation in culture media for women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: GM-CSF (granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor) is a growth factor that is used to supplement culture media in an effort to improve clinical outcomes for those undergoing assisted reproduction. It is worth noting that the use of GM-CSF-supplemented culture media often adds a further cost to the price of an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle. The purpose of this review was to assess the available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness and safety of GM-CSF-supplemented culture media. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of GM-CSF-supplemented human embryo culture media versus culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF, in women or couples undergoing assisted reproduction. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE, OpenGrey, PubMed, Google Scholar, and two trials registers on 15 October 2019, checked references of relevant papers and communicated with experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing GM-CSF (including G-CSF (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor))-supplemented embryo culture media versus any other non-GM-CSF-supplemented embryo culture media (control) in women undergoing assisted reproduction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple gestation, preterm birth, birth defects, aneuploidy, and stillbirth rates. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology. We undertook one comparison, GM-CSF-supplemented culture media versus culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF, for those undergoing assisted reproduction. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies, the data for three of which (1532 participants) were meta-analysed. We are uncertain whether GM-CSF-supplemented culture media makes any difference to the live-birth rate when compared to using conventional culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF (odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.52, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, I2 = 69%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth associated with conventional culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF was 22%, the rate with the use of GM-CSF-supplemented culture media would be between 21% and 30%. We are uncertain whether GM-CSF-supplemented culture media makes any difference to the miscarriage rate when compared to using conventional culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.36, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). This evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate associated with conventional culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF was 4%, the rate with the use of GM-CSF-supplemented culture media would be between 2% and 5%. Furthermore, we are uncertain whether GM-CSF-supplemented culture media makes any difference to the following outcomes: clinical pregnancy (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.45, 3 RCTs, N = 1532 women, I2 = 67%, low-quality evidence); multiple gestation (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.10, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence); preterm birth (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.04, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, I2 = 76%, very low-quality evidence); birth defects (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.01, I2 = 0%, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, low-quality evidence); and aneuploidy (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.26, I2 = 0%, 2 RCTs, N = 1432, low-quality evidence). We were unable to undertake analysis of stillbirth, as there were no events in either arm of the two studies that assessed this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the very low to low quality of the evidence, we cannot be certain whether GM-CSF is any more or less effective than culture media not supplemented with GM-CSF for clinical outcomes that reflect effectiveness and safety. It is important that independent information on the available evidence is made accessible to those considering using GM-CSF-supplemented culture media. The claims from marketing information that GM-CSF has a positive effect on pregnancy rates are not supported by the available evidence presented here; further well-designed, properly powered RCTs are needed to lend certainty to the evidence.

Interventions commonly available during pandemics for heavy menstrual bleeding: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Within the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, pandemics impact upon women's assessment and treatment by healthcare providers. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews evaluating interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding that are commonly available during pandemics. METHODS: We sought published Cochrane Reviews, evaluating interventions that can continue during pandemics for women with heavy menstrual bleeding with no known underlying cause. We identified Cochrane Reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in June 2020. The primary outcome was menstrual bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, side effects, and serious adverse events. We undertook the selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included four Cochrane Reviews, with 11 comparisons, data from 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and 3196 women. We assessed all the reviews to be high quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) NSAIDs may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (mean difference (MD) -124 mL per cycle, 95% confidence interval (CI) -186 to -62 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 11 women; low-certainty evidence). Mefenamic acid may be similar to naproxen (MD 21 mL per cycle, 95% CI -6 to 48 mL per cycle; 2 RCTs, 61 women; low-certainty evidence), and NSAIDs may be similar to combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding (MD 25 mL per cycle, 95% CI -22 to 73 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 26 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be be less effective in reducing menstrual bleeding than antifibrinolytics (relative risk (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 2 RCTs, 161 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs reduce menstrual blood loss more than short-cycle progestogens (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 1 RCT 32 women; very low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics Antifibrinolytics appear to be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (MD -53 mL per cycle, 95% CI -63 to -44 mL per cycle; 4 RCTs, 565 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 297 women; low-certainty evidence), and they are probably similar on the incidence of serious adverse events (thrombotic events; RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.46; 2 RCT, 468 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than short-cycle progestogen (MD -111 mL per cycle, 95% CI -178 mL to -44 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 46 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to short-cycle progestogens on quality of life (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-certainty evidence), patient satisfaction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.39; 1 RCT, 42 women; very low-certainty evidence), or side effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 211 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle progestogen (MD -9 points per cycle, 95% CI -30 to 12 points per cycle; 2 RCTs, 184 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may increase self-reported improvement in menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle medroxyprogesterone acetate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61; 1 RCT, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to long-cycle progestogens on quality of life (MD 5, 95% CI -2.49 to 12.49; 1 RCT, 90 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to long-cycle progestogens on side effects (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.00; 2 RCTs, 184 women; very low-certainty evidence). There were no trials comparing antifibrinolytics to combined hormonal contraceptives. Combined hormonal contraceptives Combined hormonal contraceptives appear to be more effective for heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo or no treatment (RR 13.25, 95% CI 2.94 to 59.64; 2 RCTs, 363 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Combined hormonal contraceptives are probably similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.60; 2 RCTs, 411 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Progestogens There were no trials comparing progestogens to placebo. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary RCTs, inconsistency between the primary RCTs, and imprecision in effect estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics and combined hormonal contraceptives reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with NSAIDs and short-cycle progestogens, but we are unable to draw conclusions about the effects of antifibrinolytics compared to long-cycle progestogens, on low-certainty evidence.