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.

A core outcome set for future endometriosis research: an international consensus development study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a core outcome set for endometriosis. DESIGN: Consensus development study. SETTING: International. POPULATION: One hundred and sixteen healthcare professionals, 31 researchers and 206 patient representatives. METHODS: Modified Delphi method and modified nominal group technique. RESULTS: The final core outcome set includes three core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for pain and other symptoms associated with endometriosis: overall pain; improvement in the most troublesome symptom; and quality of life. In addition, eight core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for infertility associated with endometriosis were identified: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound; pregnancy loss, including ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy; live birth; time to pregnancy leading to live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital abnormalities. Two core outcomes applicable to all trials were also identified: adverse events and patient satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Using robust consensus science methods, healthcare professionals, researchers and women with endometriosis have developed a core outcome set to standardise outcome selection, collection and reporting across future randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for endometriosis. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @coreoutcomes for future #endometriosis research have been developed @jamesmnduffy.

[Infected hematoma of Douglas pouch: a specific complication of the surgical excision of deep endometriosis involving the vagina]. / Hématome infecté du cul-de-sac de Douglas : une complication spécifique de la chirurgie de l'endométriose profonde postérieure du fond vaginal.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical management of deep pelvic endometriosis may be responsible for various complications, such as infected pelvic haematic collection of the Douglas pouch. The aim of this study is to describe this unfavourable outcome and to estimate its frequency in the series of women managed by our team. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study enrolling 163 women undergoing surgical removal of deep posterior endometriosis involving the vagina, from January 2008 to September 2011. We indentified women presenting with postoperative fever associated with computed tomographic findings suggesting an abscess of the Douglas pouch. Women characteristics, complication's management and outcomes were analysed in each case. RESULTS: Ten patients presented an inflammatory syndrome associated to hypothetical Douglas pouch abscess, revealed 6 days postoperatively on average. All women reported increasing pelvic pain, fever higher than 38.5°C, increased level of leucocytes and C reactive protein, and liquid collection of the Douglas pouch. Surgical management was carried out in nine women, revealing a pelvic collection of cloudy haematic liquid. Various bacteria were identified in six cases out of nine, suggesting liquid contamination through vagina opening. Postoperative outcome were immediately favourable. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Inflammatory syndrome associated with infected haematic collection of the Douglas pouch is a postoperative complication of the surgical removal of deep endometriosis involving the posterior vagina. Surgical removal of the haematic collection allows rapid and definitive favourable outcomes.

[General practitioners and the challenge of endometriosis screening and care: results of a survey]. / Les médecins traitants devant le défi du dépistage et de la prise en charge de l'endométriose : résultats d'une enquête.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the knowledge of general practitioners concerning the endometriosis diagnostic and care. POPULATION AND METHODS: Survey enrolling 100 general practitioners of the 76th Seine Maritime French department (region of Upper Normandy) who usually perform gynaecological follow up, asked to answer an irreversible 36 item step-by-step questionnaire. RESULTS: Among them, 44% perform more than one gynaecological consultation each week. They were 63% to feel ill at ease in the diagnosis and follow up of women presenting with endometriosis. One half of physicians could not cite three main symptoms of the disease out of dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain and infertility. Only 38% of general practitioners perform a clinical gynaecological examination when they suspect the endometriosis, and 28% of them recommended MRI to confirm the diagnosis. They are 24% to refer the patient without delay, but only 52% to the universitary hospital, which is the tertiary regional referral center, while 68% of them refer to a fellow practicing in a private facility. They were 64% to believe that therapeutic amenorrhea is on the bottom of the medical therapy. General practitioners were more likely to accurately answer the questionnaire when they attended gynaecological advanced courses during previous 5 years and when they followed up more than three patients previously managed for endometriosis. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: General practitioners' knowledge about endometriosis is limited, with possible direct consequences on the delay of the diagnosis. The attendance of gynaecological advanced courses and the exchange of information between gynaecologic surgeons and general practitioners who follow up the patients appear to be two-way to improve the accuracy of the answers to the questionnaire.

[Medical treatment of endometriosis: an obligation rather than a mere option!]. / Traitement médical de l'endométriose: pas une simple option, mais une obligation !

The aim of this article is to argue the usefulness of the systematic administration of medical treatment in women managed for endometriosis, either alone or associated with the surgery. The authors dispute seven frequent objections against the medical treatment: the lack of curative effect, the lack of primary prevention and the risk of delaying the diagnostic, the contraceptive effect in women wishing to conceive, the adverse effects, the risk of occurrence of new lesions following the arrest of the treatment, the lack of proof favourable to the efficient prevention of recurrences and the cost of the treatment. The authors conclude that to date the therapeutic amenorrhea represents an indispensable tool in the management of the endometriosis, in women both benefiting or not from surgical procedures.

Newborn's giant sacrococcigeal teratoma.

A sacrococcigeal tumor was detect at ultrasound maternal exam in 25TH week of pregnancy. The girl was born full term by natural way by the parents' choise. The newborn present a tumor with 12 cm diameter, situated in sacrococcigeal region, with a large base of implantation and with posteroinferior growth. This tumor produced a dislocation of the rectum and a perineal area. In the first day of baby's life, we perform the operation. We removed a large tumor (600 gr) with the coccys bone and we obtained a good repair of anatomy of the region, without postoperatory functional troubles. Postoperatory evolution was good. The newborn lived hospital healed in the 14th day. The histopatologic exam confirmed that the tumor was benign. Later evolution was good.

[Surgical treatment of tubo-ovarian abscess occurring in deep endometriosis]. / Prise en charge chirurgicale des abcès tubo-ovariens compliquant une endométriose profonde.

Tubo-ovarian abscesses are likely to occur in women suffering from deep endometriosis. The aim of surgical management of tubo-ovarian abscesses is the laparoscopic drainage, while deep endometriosis resection should be delayed. Laparoscopic procedure carried out in emergency does not attempt at the excision of deep endometriotic lesions, and must avoid the choice of the laparoconversion, in order to avoid further changes in the pelvic anatomy rendering more difficult a curative surgery. We report six cases of patients presenting tubo-ovarian abscesses arising on deep endometriosis, and we discuss the choice of the 2-step surgical management. In four cases, deep endometriosis resection has been performed by laparoscopic route few months after the drainage of abscess and provided macroscopically complete excision of the disease.

Misoprostol dose and route after mifepristone for early medical abortion: a randomised controlled noninferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 400 and 800 microg sublingual or vaginal misoprostol 24 hours after 200 mg mifepristone for noninferiority regarding efficacy in achieving complete abortion for pregnancy termination up to 63 days of gestation. DESIGN: Placebo-controlled, randomised, noninferiority factorial trial, stratified by centre and length of gestation. Misoprostol 400 or 800 microg, administered either sublingually or vaginally, with follow up after 2 and 6 weeks. SETTING: Fifteen obstetrics/gynaecology departments in ten countries. POPULATION: Pregnant women (n = 3005) up to 63 days of gestation requesting medical abortion. METHODS: Two-sided 95% CI for differences in failure of complete abortion and continuing pregnancy, with a 3% noninferiority margin, were calculated. Proportions of women with adverse effects were recorded. OUTCOME MEASURES: Complete abortion without surgical intervention (main); continuing live pregnancies, induction-to-abortion interval, adverse effects, women's perceptions (secondary). RESULTS: Efficacy outcomes analysed for 2962 women (98.6%): 90.5% had complete abortion after 400 microg misoprostol, 94.2% after 800 microg. Noninferiority of 400 microg misoprostol was not demonstrated for failure of complete abortion (difference: 3.7%; 95% CI 1.8-5.6%). The 400-microg dose showed higher risk of incomplete abortion (P < 0.01) and continuing pregnancy (P < 0.01) than 800 microg. Vaginal and sublingual routes had similar risks of failure to achieve complete abortion (P = 0.47, difference in sublingual minus vaginal -0.7%, 95% CI -2.6-1.2%). A similar pattern was observed for continuing pregnancies (P = 0.21). Fewer women reported adverse effects with vaginal than sublingual administration and with the 400-microg dose than the 800-microg dose. Of the women, 94% were satisfied or highly satisfied with the regimens, 53% preferred the sublingual route and 47% preferred the vaginal route. CONCLUSIONS: A 400-microg dose of misoprostol should not replace the 800-microg dose when administered 24 hours after 200 mg mifepristone for inducing abortion in pregnancies up to 63 days. Sublingual and vaginal misoprostol have similar efficacy, but vaginal administration is associated with a lower frequency of adverse effects.

[Guidelines for the management of painful endometriosis]. / Tratamentul endometriozei dureroase. Recomandari pentru practica clinica.

OBJECTIVE: To establish guidelines for the medical and surgical management of painful endometriosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An exhaustive review on Medline and Cochrane Database between 1980 and 2006 was performed. RESULTS: GnRH agonists, progestins, continuous monophasic oral contraceptives and danazol have a suppressive effect on dysmenorrhoea, nonmenstrual pain and dyspareunia (grade A). Surgical treatment is effective in painful endometriosis (grade B). Complete surgical excision of deep endometriotic lesions with conservation of uterus and ovaries has a limited term efficacy on pain relief (grade C). A multidisciplinary approach is recommended (grade C). The use of the psychotherapy improves the management of chronic pain (grade A). There is a lack of information concerning the therapeutic strategy able to prevent recurrences. Whether endometriosis recurrences occur, medical treatment should be the first line approach (expert opinion). A hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy and complete excision of the lesions is efficient in women with pain recurrence who no longer desire pregnancy (grade C). CONCLUSIONS: Medical and surgical treatments have a limited term efficacy on painful endometriosis (grade A). The benefit/risk ratio, depending on side-effects, should be assessed on a case to case basis.

[Management of menometrorrhagia in women with and without pregnancy intention: hierarchy of therapies]. / Hiérarchisation des stratégies thérapeutiques pour ménométrorragies avec ou sans désir de grossesse.

The first line of treatment recommended for women with idiopathic menorrhagia is pharmaceutical agents, i.e. levonorgestrel intra-uterine device, tranexamic acid, estroprogestatif pills, oral progestin and non-sterodial anti-inflammatory drugs. The second line of treatment is surgical, using endometrial curettage for women who desire pregnancy in the future. On the other hand, in women who no longer intend to get pregnant either endometrial ablation or hysterectomy can be used. The menorrhagia associated with endometrial polyps is treated through the hysteroscopic polypectomy, which result can be improved by the use of the levonorgestrel intra-uterine device or the endometrial ablation. The menorrhagia related to submucosal myomas is managed by hysteroscopic myomectomy, either as a first line of treatment or following the failure of the pharmaceutical management. The first line of treatment of interstitial myomas is represented by the medical management, followed by laparoscopic or abdominal myomectomy for women who still want to be pregnant, and by myomectomy or uterine arteries embolization for women who no longer desire pregnancy. Hysterectomy is the most efficient treatment of menorrhagia due to interstitial myomas, and may be proposed either as a third line of treatment for the myomectomy and embolization failures or as a second line of treatment for women who do not wish to conserve their uterus. Finally, the treatment for women with clinically or radiologically suspected adenomyosis is medical, followed by hysterectomy for women who desire no pregnancy.

[Laparoscopic surgery of profund endometriosis with rectal affect]. / Chirurgia laparoscopica a endometriozei profunde cu atingere rectala.

OBJECTIVE: To present the principles of laparoscopic treatment for rectal endometriosis and to discuss possible postoperative outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Our series included women managed for rectal endometriosis during consecutive 20 months in the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen--France. Patient's characteristics, symptoms, imaging examination results, surgical treatment and postoperative outcomes were all evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: Sixteen patients presenting with rectal endometriosis were managed surgically, (mean age was 35.9 +/- 6.5 years). All women presented at least one severe painful symptom which was typical of a digestive involvement in 12 cases. MRI results suggested a rectal involvement in 14 cases, and endorectal ultrasound examination clearly showed rectal wall infiltration in all patients. The gynaecological stage of surgical treatment was carried out laparoscopically in 13 cases, and the digestive surgical stage in 7 cases. Two limited and 14 segmental rectal resections were performed. Transitory stoma was carried out in 9 women. The length of the surgical procedure depended on the number of endometriosis localizations with a median value of 6 h 30 min. Postoperative complications occurred in 6 women: 2 anastomosis stenosis, 1 anastomosis fistula, 1 abscess of the parietal wall and 1 bladder atonia. Complains of pain were completely or significantly improved in all cases. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment for rectal endometriosis may be carried out laparoscopically. It should be reserved for women presenting with severe painful condition and may contribute to significant improvement. However, the balance of benefit and risks must also be assessed on a case to case basis prior to any decision for or against surgical treatment.