How effective are the non-conventional ovarian stimulation protocols in ART? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of starting the ovarian stimulation on the early follicular phase ("Conventional") with the newer range of non-conventional approaches starting in the luteal phase ("Luteal"), random-start, and studies implementing them in DuoStim ("Conventional"+"Luteal"). METHODS: Systematic review. We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase, on March 2020. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials that compared "Luteal," random-start ovarian stimulation or DuoStim with "Conventional"; we analyzed them by subgroups: oocyte freezing and patients undergoing ART treatments, both, in the general infertile population and among poor responders. RESULTS: The following results come from a sensitivity analysis that included only the low/moderate risk of bias studies. When comparing "Luteal" to "Conventional," clinically relevant differences in MII oocytes were ruled out in all subgroups. We found that "Luteal" probably increases the COH length both, in the general infertile population (OR 2.00 days, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.19, moderate-quality evidence) and in oocyte freezing cycles (MD 0.85 days, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.18, moderate-quality evidence). When analyzing DuoStim among poor responders, we found that it appears to generate a higher number of MII oocytes in comparison with a single "Conventional" (MD 3.35, 95%CI 2.54-4.15, moderate-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Overall, this systematic review of the available data demonstrates that in poor responders, general infertile population and oocyte freezing for cancer stimulation in the late follicular and luteal phases can be utilized in non-conventional approaches such as random-start and DuoStim cycles, offering similar outcomes to the conventional cycles but potentially with increased flexibility, within a reduced time frame. However, more well-designed trials are required to establish certainty.

Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?

PURPOSE: To evaluate if the authors of published systematic reviews (SRs) reported the level of quality of evidence (QoE) in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals and to analyze if they used an appropriate wording to describe it. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. We searched in PubMed for SRs published in 2017 in the five infertility journals with the highest impact factor. We analyzed the proportion of SRs published in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals that reported the SRs' QoE, and the proportion of those SRs in which authors used consistent wording to describe QoE and magnitude of effect. RESULTS: The QoE was reported in only 21.4% of the 42 included SRs and in less than 10% of the abstracts. Although we did not find important differences in the report of QoE of those that showed statistically significant differences or not, p value was associated with the wording chosen by the authors. We found inconsistent reporting of the size the effect estimate in 54.8% (23/42) and in the level of QoE in 92.9% (39/42). Whereas the effect size was more consistently expressed in studies with statistically significant findings, QoE was better expressed in those cases in which the p value was over 0.05. CONCLUSION: We found that in 2017, less than 25% of the authors reported the overall QoE when publishing SRs. Authors focused more on statistical significance as a binary concept than on methodological limitations like study design, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias. Authors should make efforts to report the QoE and interpret results accordingly.

Physicians and patients' motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate motivations to perform an elective single embryo transfer (e-SET). METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys to reproductive medicine specialists and to infertile patients undergoing assisted reproductive treatments. RESULTS: In the physician's survey (n = 278), we found that the main reasons for not offering e-SET were the physicians' belief that patients prefer optimizing the pregnancy rates regardless of the potential complications (57.1%). Regarding the decision making process, 76.7% of physicians thought that patients and doctors should make these decisions together and 93.3% would like to have a more formal decision-aid to help with counseling. In the patients' survey (n = 100), 21.3% chose e-SET, while 33% mentioned that complications associated to multiple pregnancies were insufficiently discussed. Among those patients, none chose to have e-SET, while 30% of those who had a full discussion selected e-SET (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians did not offer e-SET based on potential patients' negative feelings. Also, almost 30% take important decisions without the patient's participation. Patients that discussed more thoroughly this topic, more frequently selected e-SET. Almost all the physicians surveyed agreed that decision-aids could help in this important shared-decision process. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Decision aids about e-SET vs DET are needed to help patients in the decision making process.

[Successful treatment of a cervical heterotopic pregnancy following an in vitro fertilization procedure]. / Tratamiento exitoso de un embarazo heterotópico cervical luego de un procedimiento de fecundación in vitro.

A 37-year-old nulligravida infertile female had a cervical heterotopic pregnancy following an in vitro fertilization procedure. Early intervention on the 6th week of gestation with a manual vacuum aspirator reached to remove the cervical pregnancy. Ligation of the descending cervical branches of the uterine arteries and a cervical cerclage, were placed before the aspiration, for prevention of possible hemorrhage. Successful removal of the cervical pregnancy was achieved with only mild bleeding. An intrauterine pregnancy progressed to viability without complications, resulting in a vaginal delivery of a preterm live-birth at 35.4 weeks, of a male that weighted 2740 g.

Tratamiento exitoso de un embarazo heterotópico cervical luego de un procedimiento de fecundación in vitro / Successful treatment of a cervical heterotopic pregnancy following an in vitro fertilization procedure

Mujer nulípara infértil de 37 años presentó un embarazo heterotópico cervical luego de tratamiento por fecundación in vitro. Una intervención temprana durante la 6ta semana de gestación logró remover el saco cervical mediante un aspirador manual. Para prevenir una posible hemorragia, se realizó la ligadura de las ramas cérvico-uterinas y se colocó un cerclaje cervical, antes de la aspiración. Se logró extraer el embarazo cervical con mínima hemorragia. El embarazo intrauterino progresó sin complicaciones, resultando en el parto de un varón de 2740 g, a las 35.4 semanas.

A 37-year-old nulligravida infertile female had a cervical heterotopic pregnancy following an in vitro fertilization procedure. Early intervention on the 6th week of gestation with a manual vacuum aspirator reached to remove the cervical pregnancy. Ligation of the descending cervical branches of the uterine arteries and a cervical cerclage, were placed before the aspiration, for prevention of possible hemorrhage. Successful removal of the cervical pregnancy was achieved with only mild bleeding. An intrauterine pregnancy progressed to viability without complications, resulting in a vaginal delivery of a preterm live-birth at 35.4 weeks, of a male that weighted 2740 g.

Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the proportion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in top infertility journals indexed on PubMed that reported their results with proper effect estimates and their precision estimation, while correctly interpreting both measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study evaluating all the RCTs published in top infertility journals during 2014. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Not applicable. INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Proportion of RCTs that reported both relative and absolute effect size measures and its precision. RESULT(S): Among the 32 RCTs published in 2014 in the top infertility journals reviewed, 37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.1-56.3) did not mention in their abstracts whether the difference among the study arms was statistically or clinically significant, and only 6.3% (95% CI, 0.8-20.8) used a CI of the absolute difference. Similarly, in the results section, these elements were observed in 28.2% (95% CI, 13.7-46.7) and 15.6% (95% CI, 5.3-32.8), respectively. Only one study clearly expressed the minimal clinically important difference in their methods section, but we found related proxies in 53% (95% CI, 34.7-70.9). None of the studies used CIs to draw conclusions about the clinical or statistical significance. We found 13 studies where the interpretation of the findings could be misleading. CONCLUSION(S): Recommended reporting items are underused in top infertility journals, which could lead to misleading interpretations. Authors, reviewers, and editorial boards should emphasize their use to improve reporting quality.

Quality of reporting in infertility journals.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether fertility and top gynecology journals indexed in PubMed require the use of reporting guidelines and to identify the percentage of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2013 that were written following CONSORT guidelines in the top four fertility journals (by their highest impact factor). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study evaluating instructions for authors and RCTs published in fertility journals. SETTING: Academic institution. PATIENT(S): None. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Proportion of instruction-for-authors documents that suggested or required the use of reporting guidelines, and proportion of RCTs published in 2013 that accomplished the CONSORT checklist. RESULT(S): In 47% (16/34) of the journals one or more reporting guidelines were mentioned in the instructions for authors' documents. PRISMA and CONSORT were the most commonly mentioned reporting guidelines. None of the analyzed RCTs completed the 25 items of CONSORT guideline. Sequence generation or allocation concealment was not described in 69% of the studies. One-third of the journals did not publish a flowchart, 72% did not show relative and absolute size-effect measures, and 42% did not use measures of imprecision. In the summaries, 42% did not discuss the limitations of the study and 78% did not mention the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSION(S): Less than half of the analyzed peer-reviewed journals request the authors to use reporting guidelines. Nevertheless, among the top fertility and gynecology journals, reporting guidelines are widely mentioned. Overall, accomplishment of CONSORT items was suboptimal. Editorial boards, reviewers, and authors should join efforts to improve the quality of reporting.