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.

Caesarean scar pregnancy in the UK: a national cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) and to describe the management outcomes associated with this condition. DESIGN: A national cohort study using the UK Early Pregnancy Surveillance Service (UKEPSS). SETTING: 86 participating Early Pregnancy Units. POPULATION: All women diagnosed in the participating units with CSP between November 2013 and January 2015. METHODS: Cohort study of women identified through the UKEPSS monthly mailing system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence, clinical outcomes and complications. RESULTS: 102 cases of CSP were reported, with an estimated incidence of 1.5 per 10 000 (95% CI 1.1-1.9) maternities. Full outcome data were available for 92 women. Management was expectant in 21/92 (23%), medical in 15/92 (16%) and surgical in 56/92 (61%). The success rates of expectant, medical and surgical management were 43% (9/21), 46% (7/15) and 96% (54/56), respectively. The complication rates were 15/21 (71%) with expectant, 9/15 (60%) with medical and 20/56 (36%) with surgical management. Discharge from care (median number of days) was 82 (range 37-174) with expectant, 21 (range 10-31) with medical and 11 (range 4-49) with surgical management. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical management appears to be associated with a high success rate, low complication rate and short post-treatment follow up. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Surgery for CSP appears to be successful, with low complication rates and short post-treatment follow up.

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.

Terminology for pregnancy loss prior to viability: a consensus statement from the ESHRE early pregnancy special interest group.

Pregnancy loss prior to viability is common and research in the field is extensive. Unfortunately, terminology in the literature is inconsistent. The lack of consensus regarding nomenclature and classification of pregnancy loss prior to viability makes it difficult to compare study results from different centres. In our opinion, terminology and definitions should be based on clinical findings, and when possible, transvaginal ultrasound. With this Early Pregnancy Consensus Statement, it is our goal to provide clear and consistent terminology for pregnancy loss prior to viability.

Non-visualized pregnancy losses are prognostically important for unexplained recurrent miscarriage.

STUDY QUESTION: Are non-visualized pregnancy losses (biochemical pregnancy loss and failed pregnancy of unknown location combined) in the reproductive history of women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM) negatively associated with the chance of live birth in a subsequent pregnancy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Non-visualized pregnancy losses contribute negatively to the chance for live birth: each non-visualized pregnancy loss confers a relative risk (RR) for live birth of 0.90 (95% CI 0.83; 0.97), equivalent to the RR conferred by each additional clinical miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The number of clinical miscarriages prior to referral is an important determinant for live birth in women with RM, whereas the significance of non-visualized pregnancy losses is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study comprising 587 women with RM seen in a tertiary RM unit 2000-2010. Data on the outcome of the first pregnancy after referral were analysed for 499 women. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The study was conducted in the RM Unit at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. We included all women with unexplained RM, defined as ≥3 consecutive clinical miscarriages or non-visualized pregnancy losses following spontaneous conception or homologous insemination. The category 'non-visualized pregnancy losses' combines biochemical pregnancy loss (positive hCG, no ultrasound performed) and failed PUL (pregnancy of unknown location, positive hCG, but on ultrasound, no pregnancy location established). Demographics were collected, including BMI, age at first pregnancy after referral and outcome of pregnancies prior to referral. Using our own records and records from other Danish hospitals, we verified the outcome of the first pregnancy after referral. For each non-visualized pregnancy loss and miscarriage in the women's reproductive history, the RR for live birth in the first pregnancy after referral was determined by robust Poisson regression analysis, adjusting for risk factors for negative pregnancy outcome. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Non-visualized pregnancy losses constituted 37% of reported pregnancies prior to referral among women with RM. Each additional non-visualized pregnancy loss conferred an RR for live birth of 0.90 (95% CI 0.83; 0.97), which was not statistically significantly different from the corresponding RR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.80; 0.94) conferred by each clinical miscarriage. Among women with ≥2 clinical miscarriages, a reduced RR for live birth was also shown: 0.82 (95% CI 0.74; 0.92) for each clinical miscarriage and 0.89 (95% CI 0.80; 0.98) for each non-visualized pregnancy loss, respectively. Surgically treated ectopic pregnancies (EPs) were significantly more common for women with primary RM and no confirmed clinical miscarriages, compared with women with primary RM and ≥1 clinical miscarriage (22 versus 6%, difference 16% (95% CI 9.1%; 28.7%); RR for ectopic pregnancy was 4.0 (95% CI 1.92; 8.20). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: RM was defined as ≥3 consecutive pregnancy losses before 12 weeks' gestation, and we included only women with unexplained RM after thorough evaluation. It is uncertain whether the findings apply to other definitions of RM and among women with known causes for their miscarriages. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive investigation of prior non-visualized pregnancy losses and their prognostic significance for live birth in a subsequent pregnancy in women with unexplained RM. We show that a prior non-visualized pregnancy loss has a negative prognostic impact on subsequent live birth and is thus clinically significant. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Recurrent miscarriage and antiphospholipid antibodies: prognosis of subsequent pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Although women with antiphospholipid antibodies (APLAs) are at increased risk of recurrent miscarriage, the outcome of a subsequent pregnancy is not clearly elucidated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the pregnancy outcome of a subsequent pregnancy in women with APLAs and compare this outcome with women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage. METHODS: We performed a cohort study among all women who attended the Miscarriage Clinic at Liverpool Women's Hospital between 1987 and 2006 after being referred due to recurrent miscarriage (≥2 consecutive pregnancy losses). All women underwent a standardized investigation sequence. Women with other reasons for recurrent miscarriage were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 693 women fulfilled the selection criteria, of whom 176 (25%) had APLAs. One hundred and twenty-two (69%) women with APLAs had a subsequent live birth compared with 324 (63%) women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.9). No differences were found for birth weight, gestational age, and intra-uterine growth restriction. When treatment was analyzed, 53/67 (79%) of women with APLAs who had received aspirin and heparin during their pregnancy had a live birth, compared with 64/104 (62%) of women with APLAs who received aspirin only (adjusted OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.3-5.8). In unexplained recurrent miscarriage, stratification for treatment showed no differences in outcome. CONCLUSION: The prognosis of a subsequent pregnancy in women with APLAs is good. Although this was not a randomized clinical trial, combined treatment of aspirin and heparin seemed associated with a better outcome in women with APLAs, but not in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage.

Predicting adverse obstetric outcome after early pregnancy events and complications: a review.

BACKGROUND The aim was to evaluate the impact of early pregnancy events and complications as predictors of adverse obstetric outcome. METHODS We conducted a literature review on the impact of first trimester complications in previous and index pregnancies using Medline and Cochrane databases covering the period 1980-2008. RESULTS Clinically relevant associations of adverse outcome in the subsequent pregnancy with an odds ratio (OR) > 2.0 after complications in a previous pregnancy are the risk of perinatal death after a single previous miscarriage, the risk of very preterm delivery (VPTD) after two or more miscarriages, the risk of placenta praevia, premature preterm rupture of membranes, VPTD and low birthweight (LBW) after recurrent miscarriage and the risk of VPTD after two or more termination of pregnancy. Clinically relevant associations of adverse obstetric outcome in the ongoing pregnancy with an OR > 2.0 after complications in the index pregnancy are the risk of LBW and very low birthweight (VLBW) after a threatened miscarriage, the risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension, pre-eclampsia, placental abruption, preterm delivery (PTD), small for gestational age and low 5-min Apgar score after detection of an intrauterine haematoma, the risk of VPTD and intrauterine growth restriction after a crown-rump length discrepancy, the risk of VPTD, LBW and VLBW after a vanishing twin phenomenon and the risk of PTD, LBW and low 5-min Apgar score in a pregnancy complicated by severe hyperemesis gravidarum. CONCLUSIONS Data from our literature review indicate, by finding significant associations, that specific early pregnancy events and complications are predictors for subsequent adverse obstetric and perinatal outcome. Though, some of these associations are based on limited or small uncontrolled studies. Larger population-based controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Nevertheless, identification of these risks will improve obstetric care.

Endometrial telomerase shows specific expression patterns in different types of reproductive failure.

In order to assess whether markers of cell senescence are related to reproductive failure, the expression of telomerase and telomere length in endometrial biopsies from women with and without reproductive failure were assessed. This pilot study included 45 women of whom 10 had idiopathic recurrent loss of empty gestational sacs, 10 had idiopathic recurrent fetal loss (miscarriage following identification of fetal cardiac activity), 10 had recurrent implantation failure and 15 had two or more normal pregnancies (control group). An endometrial sample was collected during the window of implantation from each woman. The mean endometrial telomere length was determined by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Telomerase expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. The endometria of the control group showed virtually no telomerase immunoreactivity during the window of implantation. However, the immunostaining for telomerase was significantly and differentially increased in various endometrial cellular compartments in women with recurrent reproductive failure (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in mean telomere length between groups. These data provide a novel insight into the biological correlates of clinical types of recurrent reproductive failure and suggest that specific alterations in the regulation of endometrial cell fate are associated with different types of recurrent reproductive failure.

Recurrent miscarriage and long-term thrombosis risk: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent miscarriage has been associated with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and other prothombotic conditions. We tested the hypothesis that women diagnosed as having APS as an aetiological factor for their miscarriages were at higher risk of thrombosis than those with idiopathic recurrent miscarriage. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed using validated questionnaires. A total of 141 women with recurrent miscarriage and APS alone were matched with 141 women with idiopathic recurrent miscarriage for age, number and type of pregnancy loss and number of years of follow-up. A subgroup of eight women included those who initially presented with recurrent miscarriage, thrombosis and APS. RESULTS: The mean length of follow-up was 7.3 years and response rate 74%. The incidence of thrombosis was similar in the recurrent miscarriage and APS women (6/1000 women-years) and in the idiopathic recurrent miscarriage women (2/1000 women-years) (P = 0.18). All eight women who presented with recurrent miscarriage, APS and thrombosis reported further thrombotic events. CONCLUSIONS: Both idiopathic and APS-associated recurrent miscarriage were associated with a similar long-term risk of thrombosis.

Prospective observational study of bone mineral density during pregnancy: low molecular weight heparin versus control.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of long-term low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) on bone mineral density (BMD) during pregnancy. METHODS: Fifty-five patients with recurrent miscarriage and known thrombophilia (antiphospholipid syndrome) were followed through pregnancy in an ethically approved prospective observational study. All women had dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans at the lumbar spine (L1-L4) performed within 6 months prior to conception and in the immediate post-natal period, within 6 weeks of delivery. LMWH (5000 U/day) plus low-dose aspirin was commenced after a positive urine pregnancy test and continued throughout pregnancy and after delivery until 6 weeks post-partum. A group of 20 volunteers with recurrent miscarriage, not requiring any treatment intervention, acted as controls and were monitored in an identical fashion. RESULTS: Characteristics were not significantly different between treated patients and controls. Both groups showed a similar loss in lumbar spine (L1-L4) BMD by the end of the pregnancy [LMWH 4.17% or 0.045 g/cm(3), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.036-0.062 versus control 3.56% or 0.043 g/cm(3), 95% CI 0.027-0.059]. However, the difference in bone loss between the groups was not statistically significant (0.002 g/cm(3), CI -0.0124 to 0.00865; P = 0.88). No patient suffered vertebral fracture. CONCLUSIONS: Bone loss associated with the use of long-term LMWH is not significantly different from physiological losses during pregnancy.

A longitudinal study of maternal dose response to low molecular weight heparin in pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the maternal response to low molecular weight heparin during pregnancy, by estimation of plasma anti-Xa activity, at three specified gestation points and in the nonpregnant state. METHODS: A longitudinal, prospective, observational study was set in a tertiary referral recurrent miscarriage clinic. Twenty-four women, attending consecutively, were invited to participate and gave informed consent. Each woman had a history of recurring pregnancy loss and positive preconception screening for antiphospholipid syndrome. After confirmation of a viable pregnancy all subjects began taking 5000 IU of dalteparin once daily subcutaneously. Serial measurement of plasma anti-Xa activity after administration of dalteparin was performed at three standard gestation points (12, 24, and 36 weeks) and in the nonpregnant state (6 weeks postpartum). RESULTS: Peak anti-Xa levels occurred at 4 hours postbolus in pregnancy, as compared with 2 hours in the nonpregnant state. The mean anti-Xa levels at 12, 24, and 36 weeks' gestation were significantly reduced, at 2 hours postinjection, as compared with the nonpregnant state (P <.001, P <.01, P <.001, respectively). The lowest dose-response curve was at 36 weeks' gestation. A repeated-measures analysis of variance found a significant difference (P <.05) between the 36-week group and the postterm group but not between any of the other groups. CONCLUSION: During pregnancy, differences in the pharmacokinetics of low molecular weight heparin were observed, with an overall reduction in anti-Xa activity. On the basis of this study it is questionable to extrapolate dosing and lack of dose monitoring, in pregnant women, using data derived from a nonpregnant population.

Types of pregnancy loss in recurrent miscarriage: implications for research and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: In recurrent pregnancy loss, there is much debate about cause and association, as exact pathophysiological mechanisms have not been elucidated. The aim of this study was to assess whether recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) patterns differ according to causal/associated conditions, suggesting differing disease processes. METHODS: Following investigation, 427 women with RPL were classified into the following 'diagnostic' groups: idiopathic, oligomenorrhoea, antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and 'possible' APS. A total of 323 subsequently conceived, and underwent serial ultrasonography in early pregnancy; of these, 87 (26.9%) miscarried, and the types of pregnancy loss for the four diagnostic groups were allocated to either embryo loss (fetal heart never seen) and fetal loss (fetal heart seen prior to pregnancy loss). RESULTS: Overall, there were 75 embryonic losses and 12 fetal losses. The fetal loss rates in each group were similar: idiopathic 5.1%, oligomenorrhoea 3.4%, 'possible' APS 4.9% and APS 4.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Serial ultrasound helps to discriminate type of pregnancy loss and demonstrates that embryo loss is more common than fetal loss. More importantly, pregnancy loss patterns do not seem to differ between diagnostic groups in a treated population. The fetal loss rate in each of the diagnostic groups is similar to that in other reported populations.

Fluctuations in levels of antiphospholipid antibodies and increased coagulation activation markers in normal and heparin-treated antiphospholipid syndrome pregnancies.

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis and recurrent miscarriage. We assessed levels of coagulation activation markers and aPL during normal pregnancy and in women with the antiphospholipid syndrome (aPS). Fluctuations in aPL levels were observed in all patients with aPS. No particular pattern of antibody positivity, or fluctuation in aPL level, was associated with poor pregnancy outcome. A significant increase was observed in levels of factor Xlla (FXIIa; P < 0.001), factor VIIa (FVIIa, P < 0.001), thrombin antithrombin complexes (TAT; P < 0.001), prothrombin fragment F1.2 (F1.2; P < 0.001) and D-dimer (DD; P < 0.05) during normal pregnancy. Factor VIIa, TAT, F1.2 and DD increased significantly before 20 weeks gestation, while a statistically significant increase in FXIIa levels was first detected between weeks 20 and 30 of gestation. In pregnant women with aPS, increases in FXIIa were similar to those in normal pregnancy, but increased FVIIa levels were not observed until after 30 weeks gestation. Similar to normal pregnancy, increased levels of TAT and F1.2 were detected in aPS pregnancies before 20 weeks gestation, but increased DD were not observed until after week 20. Surprisingly, women with aPS receiving low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis had significantly higher (P = 0.02) levels of TAT (median 8.6; interquartile range (IQR) 6.5-20.8) between weeks 20 and 30 of gestation compared to the normal pregnant population (median 5.9; IQR 4.7-7.9), thus indicating increased thrombin generation in women with aPS in mid-pregnancy.

Pregnancy testing prior to sterilisation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of positive pregnancy test on the day of laparoscopic sterilisation. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal observational study. SETTING: Gynaecology unit in a UK teaching hospital. SAMPLE: Between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 1998, eight hundred and two consecutive women were admitted for laparoscopic sterilisation after assessment in the gynaecology clinic. On the day of planned surgery, all women had a pregnancy test performed on a urine sample taken that morning following overnight fasting, immediately prior to operation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A positive pregnancy test on the day of planned surgery. RESULTS: Of 802 women tested, 21 (2.6%) were pregnant. A careful medical history taken before surgery revealed evidence of amenorrhoea and menstrual irregularity in 17 of the pregnant women. Of the 21 pregnant women, 11 underwent termination of pregnancy, six continued the pregnancy, four had a miscarriage and one had an ectopic pregnancy. CONCLUSION: The routine practice of pregnancy testing on the day of laparoscopic sterilisation introduced in our hospital should continue to be part of a thorough clinical assessment before surgery. This may help to reduce the considerable level of existing litigation in a high risk area of gynaecological practice.