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.

Research priority setting in women's health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance. OBJECTIVE: To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women's health. SEARCH STRATEGY: Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database. SELECTION CRITERIA: Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results. MAIN RESULTS: Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52-4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39-104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results. CONCLUSION: Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women's health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy.

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.

Body mass index in relation to semen quality and reproductive hormones in New Zealand men: a cross-sectional study in fertility clinics.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there an association between body mass index (BMI) and routine semen analysis parameters in adult men? SUMMARY ANSWER: No significant correlation was found between BMI and semen parameters measured with the exception of normal sperm morphology. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Multiple cross-sectional studies have found inconsistent results, with two meta-analyses finding no correlation between BMI and semen parameters. A relationship between BMI and male reproductive hormones, particularly total testosterone, has been established in several studies and a systematic review. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Cross-sectional study of 511 men recruited at the time of semen analysis over 4 years (2008-2012). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Men presenting for semen analysis for any reason at participating fertility clinics in Auckland, New Zealand were recruited, with BMI measured or self-reported at this time. Exclusion criteria included azoospermia and pathological conditions of male genital tract. Conventional BMI categories were used (underweight <18.5 kg/m(2), normal 18.5-24.99 kg/m(2), overweight 25.00-29.99 kg/m(2), obese ≥30 kg/m(2)). The routine semen analysis results for sperm concentration, total sperm count, sperm motility (total motility), sperm morphology, semen volume and total motile sperm (primary outcome) from one semen sample were recorded. Consent from 175 men was obtained to measure LH, FSH, estradiol, total testosterone, free testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) in a blood sample (secondary outcome). Associations between BMI and these outcomes were assessed using Spearman correlation and analysis of variance, and a multiple linear regression analysis was performed. In addition, the relative risks for men having abnormal semen analysis results according to reference ranges of the World Health Organization, such as oligozoospermia, were calculated. This study has sufficient power to detect a doubling in abnormally low sperm concentration and total sperm count in overweight or obese men compared with men with normal BMI. Participation rate was not recorded. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The body mass indices from measured and self-reported samples had an equivalent range of values which did not differ statistically. Median BMI was 27.1 kg/m(2) [10th-90th percentile: 22.8-32.9]. Overall, 72.8% of the study population were overweight or obese (BMI >25 kg/m(2)), while 19 men (3.72%) had a BMI of 35-40 kg/m(2) and 7 men (1%) had a BMI of >40 kg/m(2). No significant correlation was found between BMI and the semen parameters measured with the exception of normal sperm morphology (r = 0.12, P = 0.024), although this finding is derived from only 330 samples. Overweight and obese men showed no significantly increased relative risk of abnormal semen parameters. Of the reproductive hormones, significant negative relationships with BMI were found for total testosterone (r = -0.35, P = <0.0001), free testosterone (r = -0.25, P = <0.0012) and SHBG (r = -0.44, P = <0.0001). Multiple linear regression analysis also showed that BMI had a marginally significant effect on normal sperm morphology (effect estimate =0.47, P = 0.038). In addition, <2 days of abstinence was negatively associated with semen volume (effect estimate =-0.80, P = 0.0074) and summer season was negatively associated with sperm concentration (effect estimate =-14.9, P = 0.020). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The power of this study is limited by the relatively small overall sample size, although it does have one of the largest proportions of obese men (23.3%) in published cross-sectional studies. The study involved samples from men attending a fertility clinic, who are likely to have a lower semen quality and higher rate of pathology compared with the general population, therefore limiting the possible generalization of this study to all adult men. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings are consistent with those of other cross-sectional studies as well as two meta-analyses but do disagree in part with the most recent meta-analysis (which found significant odds ratios for oligozoospermia and azoospermia with increased BMI) and with studies measuring DNA fragmentation index. Therefore a definitive conclusion on the effect of BMI on semen quality remains uncertain while our data reinforce previous findings that BMI is negatively associated with male reproductive hormones. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): All funding for this study was from New Zealand academic and charitable sources including: Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland (New Zealand), the Mercia Barnes Trust of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Nurture Foundation for Reproductive Research. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

A randomized controlled trial of fallopian tube sperm perfusion compared with standard intrauterine insemination for women with non-tubal infertility.

STUDY QUESTION: Does fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP) result in better pregnancy and live birth rates than standard intrauterine insemination (SIUI) for couples with non-tubal infertility with or without gonadotrophin or clomiphene stimulation? SUMMARY ANSWER: There was no evidence of an improvement in live birth rates with FSP compared with SIUI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous randomized controlled trials have suggested improved live birth rates with FSP but these trials were small. A systematic review published in 2004 suggested heterogeneity in results. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: This pragmatic, multicentre, randomized controlled trial compared SIUI and FSP in 417 women with non-tubal infertility. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The patients were treated at fertility clinics in New Zealand, Australia and the United Arab Emirates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Four hundred and seventeen women were randomized to SIUI (n = 210) or FSP (n = 207). Data were available for analysis from 198 women in the SIUI group and 198 women in the FSP group. There were 19 women with incomplete data because of cycle cancellation or withdrawals and 2 women who conceived prior to commencing treatment. There were no significant differences in live birth rates between the two groups with 27 (12.9%) in the SIUI group and 21 in the FSP group (10.1%) [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.31 (0.71, 2.39), P = 0.48]. Two ectopic pregnancies were reported in the SIUI group and one was reported in the FSP group. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Different ovulation protocols were used in the different clinics. Approximately 10% of the cycles involved donor sperm and ∼5% of the cycles did not complete the assigned intervention. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: There was no evidence of an improvement in live birth rates with FSP compared with SIUI. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded in part by the A+ trust of the Auckland District Health Board. No commercial funding was received. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR Number ACTRN12612001303831.

Accessing fertility treatment in New Zealand: a comparison of the clinical priority access criteria with a prediction model for couples with unexplained subfertility.

BACKGROUND: In New Zealand, public funding for assisted reproductive technology (ART) is restricted to subfertile women who are unlikely to conceive spontaneously, based on clinical and social criteria known as the clinical priority access criteria (CPAC) score. The objective of this study was to compare this CPAC score with a prediction model for predicting spontaneous conception, developed in the Netherlands (the Hunault model). METHODS: We performed a cohort study and included couples with unexplained subfertility and assessed the measure of agreement and the performance of the CPAC score and the Hunault prediction score. RESULTS: Of 663 couples referred, 249 (38%) couples had unexplained subfertility. Of 246 women with full follow-up data, there were 143 women (58%) who had a live birth during the follow-up period, 65 (26%) after fertility treatment and 78 (32%) after natural conception. There were 100 couples (41%) who had a Hunault prediction score of <30%, which is the Dutch treatment threshold, and 36 couples (15%) who had a CPAC score of >65, which is the New Zealand threshold for publically funded treatment. There were 69 couples (28%) who meet the threshold for treatment in the Netherlands but did not meet the New Zealand threshold for public funding. The kappa coefficient as a measure of agreement of the two scores and their treatment thresholds was 0.30, suggesting a fair agreement. The area under the curve for the CPAC and Hunault scores were both 0.63, but the Hunault model performed better in calibration. CONCLUSIONS: The CPAC score correlates fairly with the Hunault prediction score, although using the Hunault prediction model 26% more couples would be recommended for ART. The discriminative capacities of both scores were comparable, but the Hunault prediction score performed better in calibration. Funding models in New Zealand should consider treating those women with unexplained subfertility who are least likely to conceive spontaneously.

A comparative analysis of assisted reproductive technology cycles in Australia and New Zealand 2004-2007.

BACKGROUND: There are different funding arrangements for fertility treatments between New Zealand (NZ) and Australia. In NZ, there are two options for patients accessing treatment: either meeting specified criteria for age, no smoking and BMI for publicly funding or funding their own treatment. This differs from Australia, which has no explicit eligibility criteria restricting access to fertility treatment. An analysis of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in Australia and NZ was undertaken to consider the impact of these different funding approaches. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Australian and New Zealand Assisted Reproduction Database between 2004 and 2007. A total of 116 111 autologous fresh cycles were included. RESULTS: In Australia, more cycles were in women aged 40 years or older compared with those in NZ (23.5 versus 16.0%, P < 0.01). Single embryo transfer was more common in NZ than that in Australia, in women < 35 years of age (75.1 versus 59.6%, P < 0.01). In women <35 years, the crude rates of clinical pregnancy (37.5 versus 31.2%, P < 0.01) and live delivery (31.6 versus 26%, P < 0.01) following fresh ART cycles were significantly higher in NZ than that in Australia. These differences in outcomes persisted in older age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The purpose of the criteria used in NZ to access public funding for fertility treatments is to optimize pregnancy outcomes. This approach has resulted in a healthier population of women undergoing treatment and may explain the improved pregnancy outcomes seen in NZ couples who undergo fertility treatments.

PCOSMIC: a multi-centre randomized trial in women with PolyCystic Ovary Syndrome evaluating Metformin for Infertility with Clomiphene.

BACKGROUND: Ovulation induction treatment with metformin, either alone or in combination with clomiphene citrate (CC), remains controversial even though previous randomized trials have examined this. METHODS: A double blinded multi-centre randomized trial was undertaken including 171 women with anovulatory or oligo-ovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome. Women with high body mass index (BMI) > 32 kg/m(2) received placebo ('standard care') or metformin; women with BMI < or = 32 kg/m(2) received CC ('standard care'), metformin or both. Treatment continued for 6 months or until pregnancy was confirmed. Primary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and live birth. RESULTS: For women with BMI > 32 kg/m(2), clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were 22% (7/32) and 16% (5/32) with metformin, 15% (5/33) and 6% (2/33) with placebo. For women with BMI < or = 32 kg/m(2), clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were 40% (14/35) and 29% (10/35) with metformin, 39% (14/36) and 36% (13/36) with CC, 54% (19/35) and 43% (15/35) with combination metformin plus CC. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that adding metformin to 'standard care' is beneficial. Pregnancy and live birth rates are low in women with BMI > 32 kg/m(2) whatever treatment is used, with no evidence of benefit of metformin over placebo. For women with BMI < or = 32 kg/m(2) there is no evidence of significant differences in outcomes whether treated with metformin, CC or both. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00795808; trial protocol accepted for publication November 2005: Johnson, Aust N Z Journal Obstet Gynaecol 2006;46:141-145.

Epigenetic regulation of endometrium during the menstrual cycle.

The endometrium undergoes morphological and functional changes during the menstrual cycle which are essential for uterine receptivity. These changes are driven by estrogen and progesterone and involve the fine control of many different genes-several of which have been identified as being epigenetically regulated. Epigenetic modification may therefore influence the functional changes in the endometrium required for successful implantation. There is, however, only limited information on epigenetic regulation in endometrium. We review the potential role of epigenetic regulation of key processes during the menstrual cycle and present our own findings following a preliminary study into global acetylation levels in the human endometrium. A changing epigenetic state is associated with the differentiation of stem cells into different lineages and thus may be involved in endometrial regeneration. Histone acetylation is implicated in the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway during angiogenesis, and studies using histone deacetylase inhibitors suggest an involvement in endometrial proliferation and differentiation. The processes of decidualization and implantation are also associated with epigenetic change and epigenetic modulators show variable expression across the menstrual cycle. Our own studies found that endometrial global histone acetylation, as determined by western blotting, changed throughout the menstrual cycle and correlated well with expected transcription activity during the different phases. This suggests that epigenetics may be involved in the regulation of endometrial gene expression during the menstrual cycle and that abnormal epigenetic modifications may therefore be associated with implantation failure and early pregnancy loss as well as with other endometrial pathologies.

The impact of body mass index on semen parameters and reproductive hormones in human males: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that body mass index (BMI), especially obesity, is associated with subfertility in men. Semen parameters are central to male fertility and reproductive hormones also play a role in spermatogenesis. This review aimed to investigate the association of BMI with semen parameters and reproductive hormones in men of reproductive age. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases and references from relevant articles were searched in January and February 2009. Outcomes included for semen parameters were sperm concentration, total sperm count, semen volume, motility and morphology. Reproductive hormones included were testosterone, free testosterone, estradiol, FSH, LH, inhibin B and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG). A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate sperm concentration and total sperm count. RESULTS: In total, 31 studies were included. Five studies were suitable for pooling and the meta-analysis found no evidence for a relationship between BMI and sperm concentration or total sperm count. Overall review of all studies similarly revealed little evidence for a relationship with semen parameters and increased BMI. There was strong evidence of a negative relationship for testosterone, SHBG and free testosterone with increased BMI. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review with meta-analysis has not found evidence of an association between increased BMI and semen parameters. The main limitation of this review is that data from most studies could not be aggregated for meta-analysis. Population-based studies with larger sample sizes and longitudinal studies are required.

Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in cell culture media have led to a shift in IVF practice from early cleavage embryo transfer to blastocyst stage transfer. The rationale for blastocyst culture is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and self selection of viable embryos thus resulting in higher implantation rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine if blastocyst stage embryo transfers (ETs) affect live birth rate and associated outcomes compared with cleavage stage ETs and to investigate what factors may influence this. SEARCH STRATEGY: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Bio extracts. The last search date was January 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included if they were randomised and compared the effectiveness of early cleavage versus blastocyst stage transfers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Of the 50 trials that were identified, 18 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. The primary outcome was rate of live birth. Secondary outcomes were rates per couple of clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, high order pregnancy, miscarriage, failure to transfer embryos and cryopreservation. Quality assessment, data extraction and meta-analysis were performed following Cochrane guidelines. MAIN RESULTS: Evidence of a significant difference in live-birth rate per couple between the two treatment groups was detected in favour of blastocyst culture (9 RCTs; OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.74 (Day 2/3: 29.4% versus Day 5/6: 36.0%)). This was particularly for trials with good prognosis patients, equal number of embryos transferred (including single embryo transfer) and those in which the randomisation took place on Day 3. Rates of embryo freezing per couple was significantly higher in Day 2 to 3 transfers (9 RCTs; OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.56). Failure to transfer any embryos per couple was significantly higher in the Day 5 to 6 group (16 RCTs; OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.97 to 4.11 (Day 2/3: 2.8% versus Day 5/6: 8.9%)) but was not significantly different for good prognosis patients (9 RCTs; OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.84). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that there is a significant difference in pregnancy and live birth rates in favour of blastocyst transfer with good prognosis patients with high numbers of eight-cell embryos on Day three being the most favoured in subgroup for whom there is no difference in cycle cancellation. There is emerging evidence to suggest that in selected patients, blastocyst culture maybe applicable for single embryo transfer.