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.

The randomised uterine septum transsection trial (TRUST): design and protocol.

BACKGROUND: A septate uterus is a uterine anomaly that may affect reproductive outcome, and is associated with an increased risk for miscarriage, subfertility and preterm birth. Resection of the septum is subject of debate. There is no convincing evidence concerning its effectiveness and safety. This study aims to assess whether hysteroscopic septum resection improves reproductive outcome in women with a septate uterus. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing hysteroscopic septum resection and expectant management in women with recurrent miscarriage or subfertility and diagnosed with a septate uterus. The primary outcome is live birth, defined as the birth of a living foetus beyond 24 weeks of gestational age. Secondary outcomes are ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and complications following hysteroscopic septum resection. The analysis will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. Kaplan-Meier curves will be constructed, estimating the cumulative probability of conception leading to live birth rate over time. Based on retrospective studies, we anticipate an improvement of the live birth rate from 35% without surgery to 70% with surgery. To demonstrate this difference, 68 women need to be randomised. DISCUSSION: Hysteroscopic septum resection is worldwide considered as a standard procedure in women with a septate uterus. Solid evidence for this recommendation is lacking and data from randomised trials is urgently needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial registry ( NTR1676 , 18th of February 2009).

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.

Hyaluronic Acid Binding Sperm Selection for assisted reproduction treatment (HABSelect): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The selection of a sperm with good genomic integrity is an important consideration for improving intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcome. Current convention selects sperm by vigour and morphology, but preliminary evidence suggests selection based on hyaluronic acid binding may be beneficial. The aim of the Hyaluronic Acid Binding Sperm Selection (HABSelect) trial is to determine the efficacy of hyaluronic acid (HA)-selection of sperm versus conventionally selected sperm prior to ICSI on live birth rate (LBR). The mechanistic aim is to assess whether and how the chromatin state of HA-selected sperm corresponds with clinical outcomes-clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), LBR and pregnancy loss (PL). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Couples attending UK Centres will be approached, eligibility screening performed and informed consent sought. Randomisation will occur within 24 hours prior to ICSI treatment. Participants will be randomly allocated 1:1 to the intervention arm (physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection, PICSI) versus the control arm using conventional methods (ICSI). The primary clinical outcome is LBR ≥37 weeks' gestation with the mechanistic study determining LBR's relationship with sperm DNA integrity. Secondary outcomes will determine this for CPR and PL. Only embryologists performing the procedure will be aware of the treatment allocation. Steps will be taken to militate against biases arising from embryologists being non-blinded. Randomisation will use a minimisation algorithm to balance for key prognostic variables. The trial is powered to detect a 5% difference (24-29%: p=0.05) in LBR ≥37 weeks' gestation. Selected residual sperm samples will be tested by one or more assays of DNA integrity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: HABSelect is a UK NIHR-EME funded study (reg no 11/14/34; IRAS REF. 13/YH/0162). The trial was designed in partnership with patient and public involvement to help maximise patient benefits. Trial findings will be reported as per CONSORT guidelines and will be made available in lay language via the trial web site (http://www.habselect.org.uk/). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN99214271; Pre-results.

The effect of intrauterine HCG injection on IVF outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the effect of intrauterine HCG infusion before embryo transfer on IVF outcomes (live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate and spontaneous aboretion rate) was investigated. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. Randomized studies in women undergoing IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection comparing intrauterine HCG administration at embryo transfer compared with no intrauterine HCG were eligible for inclusion. Eight randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A total of 3087 women undergoing IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles were enrolled (intrauterine HCG group: n = 1614; control group: n = 1473). No significant difference was found in the live birth rate (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.53) and spontaneous abortion rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34) between women who received intrauterine HCG and those who did not receive HCG. Although this review was extensive and included randomized controlled trials, no significant heterogeneity was found, and the overall included numbers are relatively small. In conclusion the current evidence does not support the use of intrauterine HCG administration before embryo transfer. Well-designed multicentre trials are needed to provide robust evidence.

Intermediate and long-term outcomes following uterine artery fibroid embolization.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patients' satisfaction and the intermediate and long-term patterns of symptom progression following uterine artery fibroid embolization (UAE). STUDY DESIGN: Intermediate (2-6 years) and long-term (9-14 years) follow-up questionnaire survey to women who underwent UAE during the period 1996-2000, at a tertiary referral centre. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of women at the time of embolization was 43 (5.58) years. A total of 142/197 (72.1%) women had the embolization in view of heavy menstrual periods, while 87/197 (44%) indicated a desire to retain fertility. 160/197 (81.7%) women who completed Q1 reported an improvement in menstrual symptoms compared to 41/80 (51.2%) for Q2 [p<0.01]. The majority indicated they would recommend the procedure to a friend (Q1: 165 (83.8%), Q2: 62/80 (77.5%)) [p=0.75]. 23/80 (28.8%) required further surgical treatment following UAE, and within the latter group, only 7/23 (30.4%) were satisfied with the embolization. 22/80 (27.5%) tried for a pregnancy following the procedure, and of these 3/22 (13.6%) had a live birth. The mean (SD) age at the menopause for women who returned Q2 was 49.1 (4.91) years. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of women were satisfied with the embolization and noted an improvement in menstrual symptoms. However, this improvement diminished over time following the embolization, and over a quarter of women required further surgical intervention. Findings from this study may provide useful information in counselling women undergoing UAE and help guide clinicians in their patient selection criteria when discussing the procedure.

A multi-centre phase 3 study comparing efficacy and safety of Bemfola(®) versus Gonal-f(®) in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF.

Bemfola (follitropin alfa) (Finox AG, Switzerland), a new recombinant FSH, has a comparable pharmacological profile to that of Gonal-f (Merck Serono, Germany), the current standard for ovarian stimulation. A randomized, multi-centre, Phase 3 study in women undergoing IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (n = 372) showed Bemfola yielding similar efficacy and safety profiles to Gonal-f. Women aged 20-38 years of age were randomized 2:1 to receive a single, daily, subcutaneous 150 IU dose of either Bemfola or Gonal-f. This study tested equivalence in the number of retrieved oocytes using a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of ±2.9 oocytes. Compared with Gonal-f, Bemfola treatment resulted in a statistically equivalent number of retrieved oocytes (Bemfola 10.8 ± 5.11 versus Gonal-f 10.6 ± 6.06, mean difference: 0.27 oocytes, 95% confidence interval: -1.34, 1.32) as well as a similar clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer in first and second cycles (Bemfola: 40.2% and 38.5%, respectively; Gonal-f: 48.2% and 27.8%, respectively). No difference in severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was observed between treatment groups (Bemfola: 0.8%; Gonal-f: 0.8%). This study demonstrates similar clinical efficacy and safety profiles between Bemfola and Gonal-f, and suggests that Bemfola can be an appropriate alternative in ovarian stimulation protocols.

The evolving role of saline infusion sonography (SIS) in infertility.

Saline infusion sonography (SIS) has become a valuable diagnostic modality in gynaecology over the last three decades. SIS is now commonly employed for detailed evaluation of the uterine cavity as part of pre-treatment assessment in infertile women. The objective of this paper is review the scientific literature on SIS in infertility. Medline, Ovid and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles. The indications, technical aspects and the potential advantages of SIS are discussed. The efficacy and sensitivity of SIS are compared to hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine polyps, fibroids, intrauterine adhesions and uterine anomalies. Increasing evidence suggests the use of SIS prior to an in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle as it has increased sensitivity in the detection of intrauterine pathology. SIS is cost-effective and results in better patient satisfaction scores than hysteroscopy.

Reproductive outcome following abdominal myomectomy for a very large fibroid uterus.

The aim of this study was to assess the long-term reproductive outcome following abdominal myomectomy in women with very large fibroid uteri. It is a retrospective study of 90 subfertile women with the main outcome measure of live-birth rate following spontaneous and assisted conception. Mean age of the study population was 37 ± 5 years and mean uterine size was 21 ± 6 weeks. During follow-up (mean 50 ± 10 months), 28 (31%) pregnancies occurred; 18 spontaneous and 10 following IVF. The live-birth rate was 20% and the miscarriage rate was 32%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the chance of live birth was significantly reduced with increasing female age at the time of surgery (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.86, p = 0.002). The perioperative blood transfusion rate was 30% and the incidence of major complications was 6%. Fertility after abdominal myomectomy for very large fibroid uteri is possible, and its major determinant is female age at the time of surgery.

The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on live birth rate after IVF or ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between the extent of sperm DNA damage and live birth rate (LBR) per couple and the influence of the method of fertilization on treatment outcome. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Six studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Overall, LBR increased signficantly in couples with low sperm DNA fragmentation compared with those with high sperm DNA fragmentation (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28; P = 0.0005). After IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), men with low sperm DNA fragmentation had significantly higher LBR (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.52; P = 0.01) and (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23, P = 0.04), respectively. A sensitivity analysis showed no statistically significant difference in LBR between low and high sperm DNA fragmentation when ICSI treatment was used (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.96; P = 0.88). High sperm DNA fragmentation in couples undergoing assisted reproduction techniques is associated with lower LBR. Well-designed randomized studies are required to assess the role of ICSI over IVF in the treatment of men with high sperm DNA fragmentation.

Diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonography in the evaluation of uterine cavity abnormalities prior to assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic accuracy of a 2-D transvaginal scan, which is commonly employed to evaluate the regularity and shape of the uterine cavity in subfertile women, is relatively poor compared with other diagnostic modalities like saline infusion sonography (SIS) or hysteroscopy. SIS is a minimally invasive, cost-effective and acceptable diagnostic modality. Therefore the aim of this systematic review was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of SIS in the evaluation of the uterine cavity in subfertile women. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of diagnostic studies that compared SIS with hysteroscopy. Twenty relevant studies (including 1645 procedures) were identified and a subsequent meta-analysis was performed. Electronic databases were searched for relevant studies and references of relevant studies were cross checked. Validity was assessed and data were extracted independently by two authors. Heterogeneity was examined, studies were plotted in an ROC area and data were pooled. The main outcome measure was the diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonography. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and the post-test probabilities of saline infusion sonography on the prediction of uterine cavity abnormalities were calculated. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity of SIS in the detection of all intrauterine abnormalities was 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-0.90). The pooled specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.96). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 20.93 (95% CI: 9.06-48.34) and 0.15 (95% CI: 0.10-0.22), respectively. SIS had good accuracy in the detection of all intrauterine abnormalities (area under the summary receiver operating curve (sROC) = 0.97 ± 0.01). SIS also had a high pooled sensitivity and specificity in the detection of congenital uterine anomalies, 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79-0.90) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00), respectively. However the limitations of the review include the heterogeneity amongst the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: SIS is a highly sensitive investigative modality and comparable to the gold standard tool, hysteroscopy in the detection of intrauterine abnormalities in subfertile women. SIS is a highly sensitive and specific test in the diagnosis of uterine polyps, submucous myomas, uterine anomalies and intrauterine adhesions and can be used as a screening tool for subfertile patients prior to IVF treatment.

Perioperative morbidity associated with abdominal myomectomy compared with total abdominal hysterectomy for uterine fibroids.

The aim of the study was to systematically review and summarise existing evidence related to the perioperative morbidity associated with abdominal myomectomy in comparison with abdominal hysterectomy for uterine fibroids. A review of MEDLINE and EMBASE was carried out. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate and secondary outcomes were uterine size, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, operating time and duration of hospital stay. The results identified six observational studies including 1520 participants. All studies scored moderately on the N-OQA scale and were limited to a uterine size of up to 18 weeks. There was no significant difference in the rate of major morbidity (RR 0.94; 95% CI = 0.31, 2.81; p = 0.91) between the two operations. It was concluded that based on variable quality data from retrospective cohort studies, abdominal myomectomy and hysterectomy appear to have similar major morbidity rates for the uterine size up to 16-18 weeks. Well-designed trials with a standardised morbidity outcome and including uterine size greater than 18 weeks are required.

Peri-operative morbidity associated with abdominal myomectomy for very large fibroid uteri.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of abdominal myomectomy for very large fibroid uteri, and to assess the effect of relevant confounding variables on the occurrence of major peri-operative complications. STUDY DESIGN: A cohort study of 200 abdominal myomectomies for fibroid uteri of 16 gestational weeks or greater. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the influence of important clinical variables on the risk of complications. A systematic literature search was conducted for evidence related to peri-operative morbidity associated with abdominal myomectomy for very large fibroid uteri. RESULTS: The mean (±standard deviation) uterine size was 21±5 weeks. The overall rate of major complications was 30%. Peri-operative bleeding necessitating blood transfusion occurred in 49 (24.5%) cases. During surgery, two patients had bowel injury, two had bladder injury, seven women returned to theatre and two (1%) had hysterectomy. Four patients were re-admitted within 14 days of surgery. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of major complications was significantly higher in cases with a uterine size of 20 gestational weeks or more [odds ratio (OR) 3.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-10.2; p=0.03], where 10 or more fibroids were removed (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.1-10.8; p=0.05) and where midline skin incision was required (OR 6.1, 95% CI 1.7-22.3; p=0.006). On comparison of primary vs repeat abdominal myomectomy, there was significantly higher blood loss (mean 1023±1112 ml vs 579±787 ml; p=0.02) and risk of major complications in the repeat myomectomy group (40% vs 5%; p<0.001). The systematic review identified only one study that reported a comparable risk of major complications related to abdominal myomectomy for very large fibroid uteri. CONCLUSION: The risk of organ injury, hysterectomy, re-operation or hospital re-admission after abdominal myomectomy for very large fibroid uteri is low, but the procedure is associated with a significant risk of bleeding necessitating blood transfusion. This risk is increased after repeat myomectomy, and in patients with a uterine size of 20 gestational weeks or larger, requiring removal of 10 or more fibroids, and requiring a midline skin incision.

Effect of heparin on the outcome of IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The effect of heparin on IVF outcome has been widely debated in the literature. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature was conducted to evaluate the effect of heparin treatment on IVF outcome. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science and identified 10 relevant studies (five observational and five randomized) comprising 1217 and 732 IVF cycles, respectively. The randomized studies included small numbers of women and exhibited high methodological heterogeneity. Meta-analysis of the randomized studies showed no difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.97-1.57), live birth rate (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89-1.81) implantation rate (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.96-2.01) and miscarriage rate (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24-2.42) in women receiving heparin compared with placebo during IVF treatment. However, meta-analysis of the observational studies showed a significant increase in the clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04-3.23, P=0.04) and live birth rate (RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.84-3.80, P<0.0001). The role of heparin as an adjuvant therapy during IVF treatment requires further evaluation in adequately powered high-quality randomized studies. The effect of heparin on IVF outcome is widely debated. Despite the results of published studies being conflicting, it has been suggested that the use of heparin results in increased pregnancy rates following IVF treatment. We conducted a systematic and comprehensive of the published literature to evaluate the effect of heparin treatment on IVF outcome. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. We identified 10 studies from the literature and extracted the relevant data from the studies. Analyses of the data from randomized trials showed no improvement in the clinical pregnancy rate or the live birth rate in the group that received heparin. However, the studies included had small numbers of women and high methodological heterogeneity. The role of heparin in this context requires further evaluation in adequately powered randomized studies.