Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

BACKGROUND: Implantation of an embryo within the endometrial cavity is a critical step in the process of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Previous research has suggested that endometrial injury (also known as endometrial scratching), defined as intentional damage to the endometrium, can increase the chance of pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) including intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and frozen embryo transfer. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2020 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE and two trial registries. We also checked the reference sections of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing intentional endometrial injury before embryo transfer in women undergoing IVF, versus no intervention or a sham procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two independent review authors screened studies, evaluated risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence by using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. We contacted and corresponded with study investigators as required. Due to the high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, the primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at a low risk of bias for selection bias and other bias. Sensitivity analysis was then performed including all studies. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage. MAIN RESULTS: Endometrial injury versus control (no procedure or a sham procedure) A total of 37 studies (8786 women) were included in this comparison. Most studies performed endometrial injury by pipelle biopsy in the luteal phase of the cycle before the IVF cycle. The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and included eight studies. The effect of endometrial injury on live birth is unclear as the result is consistent with no effect, or a small reduction, or an improvement (odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.28; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 15%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth with IVF is usually 27%, then the chance when using endometrial injury would be somewhere between < 27% and 32%. Similarly, the effect of endometrial injury on clinical pregnancy is unclear (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.23; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy from IVF is normally 32%, then the chance when using endometrial injury before IVF is between 31% and 37%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy due to high risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity. Endometrial injury probably results in little to no difference in chance of miscarriage (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), and this result was similar in the sensitivity analysis that included all studies. The result suggests that if the chance of miscarriage with IVF is usually 6.0%, then when using endometrial injury it would be somewhere between 4.2% and 6.8%. Endometrial injury was associated with mild to moderate pain (approximately 4 out of 10), and was generally associated with some minimal bleeding. The evidence was downgraded for imprecision due to wide confidence intervals and therefore all primary analyses were graded as moderate certainty. Higher versus lower degree of injury Only one small study was included in this comparison (participants = 129), which compared endometrial injury using two different instruments in the cycle prior to the IVF cycle: a pipelle catheter and a Shepard catheter. This trial was excluded from the primary analysis due to risk of bias. In the sensitivity analysis, all outcomes reported for this study were graded as very-low certainty due to risk of bias, and as such we were not able to interpret the study results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effect of endometrial injury on live birth and clinical pregnancy among women undergoing IVF is unclear. The results of the meta-analyses are consistent with an increased chance, no effect and a small reduction in these outcomes. We are therefore uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the chance of live birth or clinical pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. Endometrial injury does not appear to affect the chance of miscarriage. It is a somewhat painful procedure associated with a small amount of bleeding. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the routine use of endometrial injury for women undergoing IVF.

Regular (ICSI) versus ultra-high magnification (IMSI) sperm selection for assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Subfertility is a condition found in up to 15% of couples of reproductive age. Gamete micromanipulation, such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), is very useful for treating couples with compromised sperm parameters. An alternative method of sperm selection has been described; the spermatozoa are selected under high magnification (over 6000x) and used for ICSI. This technique, named intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI), has a theoretical potential to improve reproductive outcomes among couples undergoing assisted reproduction techniques (ART). However, our previous version of this Cochrane Review was unable to find evidence that supported this possible beneficial effect. This is an update of Teixeira 2013. OBJECTIVES: To identify, appraise, and summarise the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety of IMSI compared to ICSI in couples undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in these electronic databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and in these trial registers: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also handsearched the reference lists of included studies and similar reviews. We performed the last electronic search on 18 November 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only considered RCTs that compared ICSI and IMSI; we did not include quasi-randomised trials. We considered studies that permitted the inclusion of the same participant more than once (cross-over or per cycle trials) only if data regarding the first treatment of each participant were available. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias and quality of the evidence; we solved disagreements by consulting a third review author. We corresponded with study investigators to resolve any queries, as required. MAIN RESULTS: The updated search retrieved 535 records; we included 13 parallel-designed RCTs comparing IMSI and ICSI (four studies were added since the previous version), comprising 2775 couples (IMSI = 1256; ICSI = 1519). We are uncertain if IMSI improves live birth rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.39; 5 studies, 929 couples; I² = 1%), miscarriage rates per couple (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.48; 10 studies, 2297 couples; I² = 0%, very-low quality evidence), and miscarriage rate per pregnancy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20; 10 studies, 783 couples; I² = 0%, very-low quality evidence). We are uncertain if IMSI improves clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; 13 studies, 2775 couples; I² = 47%, very-low quality evidence). None of the included studies reported congenital abnormalities. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be of very low-quality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence due to limitations of the included studies (risk of bias), inconsistency of results, and a strong indication of publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support or refute the clinical use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI). We are very uncertain of the chances of having a live birth and of the risk of having a miscarriage. We found very low-quality evidence that IMSI may increase chances of a clinical pregnancy, which means that we are still very uncertain about any real difference. We did not find any trials reporting on the risk of congenital abnormalities. Well-designed and sufficiently powered trials are still required.

Inter-Rater Reliability of Air/Saline HyCoSy, HyFoSy and HyFoSy Combined With Power Doppler for Screening Tubal Patency.

PURPOSE: To estimate the inter-observer reliability and agreement of offline analyses of three different ultrasound techniques for assessing tubal patency. METHODS: 100 tubes (n = 100) in 50 women were evaluated for tubal patency between November 2013 and July 2015 using ultrasound as index tests and laparoscopy as the reference standard. Three different ultrasound techniques were applied: two-dimensional grayscale ultrasound using air + saline as the contrast media (2D-HyCoSy); two- and three-dimensional grayscale ultrasound using foam as the contrast media (2 D/3D-HyFoSy); and the same technique but adding bi-directional power Doppler (2 D/3D-Doppler-HyFoSy). The videos containing full standardized exams using these three techniques were split into three parts, anonymized, encoded, randomized and reassessed in Nov. 2015 by two observers who assessed tubal patency using standardized criteria. These observers were blinded to any clinical information and each other's results. Proportions of observed agreement (po) and Cohen's Kappa (κ) including the 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: The inter-observer reliability/agreement in 2 D/3D-Doppler-HyFoSy (po = 0.99, κ = 0.95, 95 % CI: 0.93 - 0.97) was higher compared to 2D-air/saline-HyCoSy (po = 0.83, κ = 0.55, 95 % CI: 0.40 - 0.68) and 2 D/3D-HyFoSy (po = 0.92, κ = 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.54 - 0.76). CONCLUSION: The inter-observer reliability and agreement of the diagnosis of tubal patency evaluating stored videos are improved when foam and power Doppler are used during acquisition. Therefore, this technique may be preferred to minimize misclassification and misdiagnosis.

Single versus double intrauterine insemination (IUI) for pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study is focused in appraising the current evidence comparing double and single IUI for achieving a pregnancy. The primary outcomes were live birth and ectopic pregnancy per women randomized. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy and miscarriage. The evaluation of the risk of bias within each study was structured using the Cochrane risk of bias and the overall quality of the body of evidence was assessed through the GRADE criteria. Electronic searches were run in 4 databases and resulted in 15 studies included encompassing 3795 women. The subgroup 'mild male infertility' included 1246 women whilst the subgroup 'normal semen quality' included 1188 women. Clinical pregnancy was reported by all studies, and there is no evidence of a difference between single and double IUI (RR 1.22, CI 0.97 to 1.54, 15 RCTs, 3795 women, I2=45%). In the subgroup analysis, we could not identify a particular group that could benefit from the intervention. No conclusion can be drawn regarding live birth, ectopic pregnancy, and miscarriage because they were reported by too few studies and the estimates were too imprecise. Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of double IUI in clinical practice. It requires a second appointment and insemination, thus making the treatment more complex and expensive, without a clear evidence of a benefit. Nevertheless, evidence is still of low quality and our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the hereby demonstrated.

Pain Intensity During Ultrasound Assessment of Uterine Cavity and Tubal Patency With and Without Painkillers: Prospective Observational Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the pain intensity and incidence of mild to severe pain during the ultrasound assessment of the uterine cavity and tubal patency using saline, air and saline, and foam as contrasts with and without painkiller. DESIGN: Prospective observational study (Canadian Task Force classification II-1). SETTING: Private clinic. PATIENTS: Three hundred infertile women who were consecutively submitted to uterine cavity and tubal patency assessment by ultrasound using saline, air, and foam in single exam between October 2012 and November 2013. INTERVENTIONS: No painkillers were used until March 2013 when we started offering an effervescent codeine tablet containing paracetamol 500 mg and codeine phosphate 30 mg approximately 1 hour before the procedure. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pain intensity measured with an 11-point (0-10) numerical rating scale and incidence of moderate/severe levels of pain (numerical rating scale > 3) during the main components of the procedure (speculum insertion, catheter insertion, saline infusion, air and saline infusion, foam infusion, and after the procedure [0 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, and 24 hours]) were assessed. The incidence of moderatesevere pain was significantly lower in women using painkillers considering any moment of the procedure: 49 of 175 (28%) versus 65 of 125 (52%); relative risk, .54; 95% confidence interval, .40-.72; p < .001; number needed to treat, 4. Less women presented with moderate/severe pain during air and saline compared with foam infusion: 31 of 300 (10%) versus 75 of 300 (25%); p < .001; relative risk, .41, 95% confidence interval, .28-.61. CONCLUSION: The incidence of moderate/severe pain during the ultrasound assessment of the uterine cavity and tubal patency is common. Our results suggest that using paracetamol + codeine before the procedure reduces the pain level, but randomized controlled trials are required.

Blastocyst culture using single versus sequential media in clinical IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to undertake a review of the available evidence comparing the use of a single medium versus sequential media for embryo culture to the blastocyst stage in clinical IVF. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central, PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify randomized controlled trials comparing single versus sequential media for blastocyst culture and ongoing pregnancy rate. Included studies randomized either oocytes/zygotes or women. Eligible oocyte/zygote studies were analyzed to assess the risk difference (RD) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) between the two media systems; eligible woman-based studies were analyzed to assess the risk ratio (RR) and 95 % CI for clinical pregnancy rate. RESULTS: No differences were observed between single and sequential media for either ongoing pregnancy per randomized woman (relative risk (RR) = 0.9, 95 % CI = 0.7 to 1.3, two studies including 246 women, I 2 = 0 %) or clinical pregnancy per randomized woman (RR = 1.0, 95 % CI = 0.7 to 1.4, one study including 100 women); or miscarriage per clinical pregnancy: RR = 1.3, 95 % CI = 0.4 to 4.3, two studies including 246 participants, I 2 = 0 %). Single media use was associated with an increase blastocyst formation per randomized oocyte/zygote (relative distribution (RD) = +0.06, 95 % CI = +0.01 to +0.12, ten studies including 7455 oocytes/zygotes, I 2 = 83 %) but not top/high blastocyst formation (RD = +0.05, 95 % CI = -0.01 to +0.11, five studies including 3879 oocytes/zygotes, I 2 = 93 %). The overall quality of the evidence was very low for all these four outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although using a single medium for extended culture has some practical advantages and blastocyst formation rates appear to be higher, there is insufficient evidence to recommend either sequential or single-step media as being superior for the culture of embryos to days 5/6. Future studies comparing these two media systems in well-designed trials should be performed.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Intentional endometrial injury is currently being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy or a similar technique, and is a common, simple, gynaecological procedure that has an established safety profile. However, it is also known to be associated with a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with low complexity fertility treatments such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) and ovulation induction (OI), remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury in subfertile women and couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gyanecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE, ISI Web of Knowledge and ClinicalTrials.gov; as well as reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. We performed the searches from inception to 31 October 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without OI) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed trial quality using GRADE methodology. The primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy and bleeding secondary to the procedure. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials, which included a total of 1512 women, met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review. Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. In seven studies the women were undergoing IUI and in two studies the women were trying to conceive from sexual intercourse. Eight trials compared intentional endometrial injury with no injury/placebo procedure; of these two trials also compared intentional endometrial injury in the cycle prior to IUI with intentional endometrial injury in the IUI cycle. One trial compared higher vs. lower degree of intentional endometrial injury. Intentional endometrial injury vs. either no intervention or a sham procedureWe are uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy as the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low (risk ratio (RR) 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 3.15; six RCTs, 950 participants; I² statistic = 0%, very low quality evidence). When we restricted the analysis to only studies at low risk of bias the effect was imprecise and the evidence remained of very low quality (RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.82; one RCT, 105 participants; very low quality evidence). Endometrial injury may improve clinical pregnancy rates however the evidence is of low quality (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.58; eight RCTs, 1180 participants; I² statistic = 0%, low quality evidence).The average pain experienced by participants undergoing endometrial injury was 6/10 on a zero-10 visual analogue scale (VAS)(standard deviation = 1.5). However, only one study reported this outcome. Higher vs. lower degree of intentional endometrial injuryWhen we compared hysteroscopy with endometrial injury to hysteroscopy alone, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; one RCT, 332 participants; low quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.01; one RCT, 332 participants, low quality evidence). This study did not report the primary outcome of pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injuryWhen endometrial injury was performed in the cycle prior to IUI compared to the same cycle as the IUI, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.16, one RCT, 176 participants; very low quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.36; two RCTs, 276 participants; very low quality evidence). Neither of these studies reported the primary outcome of pain during the procedure.In all three comparisons there was no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or multiple pregnancy. No studies reported bleeding secondary to the procedure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the probability of pregnancy and live birth/ongoing pregnancy in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution as we graded the quality of the evidence as either low or very low. The main reasons we downgraded the quality of the evidence were most included studies were at a high risk of bias and had an overall low level of precision. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise internal bias are required to confirm or refute these findings.

Low versus atmospheric oxygen tension for embryo culture in assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To appraise the available evidence comparing low oxygen (LowO2) and atmospheric oxygen tension (AtmO2) for embryo culture. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Women undergoing assisted reproduction using embryo culture. INTERVENTION(S): Embryo culture using LowO2 versus AtmO2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Reproductive, laboratory, and pregnancy outcomes. RESULT(S): A total of 21 studies were included in this review. All used O2 concentration between 5% and 6% in the LowO2 group. Considering the studies that randomized women/couples, we observed very low quality evidence that LowO2 is better for live birth/ongoing pregnancy (relative risk [RR] = 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.3) and clinical pregnancy (RR = 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.2). Considering the studies that randomized oocytes/embryos, we observed low quality evidence of no difference of fertilization (RR = 1.0, 95% CI 1.0-1.0) and cleavage rate (RR = 1.0, 95% CI 1.0-1.1), and low quality evidence that LowO2 is better for high/top morphology at the cleavage stage (RR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.3). No studies comparing pregnancy outcomes were identified. Several studies used different incubators in the groups-a new model for the LowO2 group and an old model for the AtmO2 group. The risk of detection bias for the laboratory outcomes was high as embryologists were not blinded. CONCLUSION(S): Although we observed a small improvement (∼5%) in live birth/ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates (PRs), the evidence is of very low quality and the best interpretation is that we are still very uncertain about differences in this comparison. The clinical equipoise remains and more large well-conducted randomized controlled trials are needed. They should use the same incubators in both groups and the embryologists should be blinded at least when evaluating laboratory outcomes.

Importance of Pulse Repetition Frequency Adjustment for 3- and 4-Dimensional Power Doppler Quantification.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of the pulse repetition frequency (PRF) and wall motion filter on the 3-dimensional (3D) power Doppler vascularization-flow index (VFI) and volumetric pulsatility index (PI) obtained from spatiotemporal image correlation (STIC) data sets acquired from a common carotid artery of a healthy participant. METHODS: We acquired 11 STIC data sets, 1 for each PRF value ranging from 0.6 to 9.0 kHz. Vascularization-flow index and volumetric PI values were determined from the 440 static 3D data sets contained in these STIC data sets. Additionally, 3 sets of radio-frequency data were acquired for offline processing of different wall motion filter values for PRF values of 0.6, 3.3, and 10 kHz. RESULTS: We constructed VFI curves and observed 2 patterns: a flattened pattern with a low PRF and a triphasic pattern with a high PRF, correlating with the known pulsed wave Doppler profile of this vessel. Volumetric PI values were around 0 for low PRF settings and increased with increasing PRF. Analysis of the radiofrequency data showed that increasing wall motion filter values gradually filtered out the low-velocity power Doppler signals while retaining the higher-velocity ones, allowing the distinction of integrated power Doppler signal velocity throughout the cardiac cycle. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the PRF and wall motion filter dramatically influence 3D power Doppler indices and the volumetric PI, and the use of PRF values in which minimum VFI values are measured during the diastolic phase in the spectral Doppler wave may validate the use of the volumetric PI.

Artificial oocyte activation to improve reproductive outcomes in women with previous fertilization failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

STUDY QUESTION: In couples with previous fertilization failure, are reproductive outcomes improved using ICSI followed by artificial oocyte activation (ICSI-AOA) compared with conventional ICSI? SUMMARY ANSWER: There is insufficient evidence available from RCTs to judge the efficacy and safety of ICSI-AOA for couples with previous fertilization failure. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In cases with previous low fertilization rates or total fertilization failure using ICSI due to sperm-related, oocyte activation deficiency, several methods of AOA have been described, which employ mechanical, electrical or chemical stimuli. Reported fertilization and pregnancy rates appear to be improved after ICSI-AOA compared with conventional ICSI; however, the small studies performed to date make it difficult to assess the clinical efficacy or safety of AOA. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: The present systematic review and meta-analysis identified RCTs that compared ICSI-AOA and conventional ICSI. The last electronic search was conducted in August 2014 and there was no limitation regarding language, publication date, or publication status. We included studies that randomized either oocytes or women and included them in two different parts of this review: a women-based review and an oocyte-based review. For the women-based review, the primary outcome of effectiveness was live birth per randomized woman and the primary outcome for safety was congenital anomalies per clinical pregnancy. For the oocyte-based review, the primary outcome was embryo formation per oocyte randomized. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, AND METHODS: Record screening and data extraction were performed independently by two authors and risk of bias was assessed by three authors. The effects of ICSI-AOA compared with conventional ICSI were summarized as risk ratio (RR) and the precision of the estimates was evaluated by the 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 14 articles were assessed for eligibility and 9 included in the meta-analysis: 2 studies comprised the woman-based review (n = 168 women) and 7 studies the oocyte-based review (n = 4234 oocytes). Only four studies evaluated AOA due to fertilization failure after conventional ICSI: these were included in the quantitative analysis. In two studies evaluating couples with a history of fertilization failure in a previous cycle, ICSI-AOA was associated with an increase in the proportion of cleavage stage embryos (RR 5.44, 95% CI 2.98-9.91) and top/high quality cleavage stage embryos (RR 10.02, 95% CI 2.45-40.95). There was no evidence of effect on fertilization rate (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.84-10.48). In the two studies that evaluated ICSI-AOA as a rescue method for unfertilized oocytes after conventional ICSI, ICSI-AOA was associated with an increase in fertilization (RR 8.26, 95% CI 1.28-53.32, P = 0.03) and cleavage rates (RR 8.65, 95% CI 2.28-32.77) although there was no significant effect on the likelihood of blastocyst formation (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.11-34.99). The remaining five studies evaluated ICSI-AOA for reasons other than fertilization failure and were excluded. LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION: The majority of the studies were not considered to be similar enough for meta-analysis due to different AOA methods and patient inclusion criteria, thus limiting the possibility of pooling studies and achieving a more robust conclusion. Only two studies examined ICSI-AOA in couples with previous fertilization failure, and only one of these included couples with proven male-related, oocyte activation deficiency, which is the primary indication for AOA. The resulting evidence was considered to be of very low quality and should be interpreted with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: There is insufficient evidence available from the currently available RCTs to judge the efficacy or safety of ICSI-AOA on key reproductive outcomes in couples with previous fertilization failure. Such interventions should be further examined by well-designed RCTs before the introduction of ICSI-AOA as a standard treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was obtained. No competing interests to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42014007445.

Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques.

BACKGROUND: Implantation of an embryo within the endometrial cavity is a critical step in assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Previous research has suggested that endometrial injury - intentional damage to the endometrium - can increase the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing ART. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and ClinicalTrials.gov. The original search was performed in November 2011, and further searches were done in March 2014 and January 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing intentional endometrial injury before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART, versus no intervention or a sham procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened studies and extracted data which were checked by a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias. We contacted and corresponded with study investigators as required and analysed data using risk ratio (RR) and a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials that included 1063 women in the intervention groups and 1065 women in the control groups. Thirteen studies compared endometrial injury performed between day 7 of the previous cycle and day 7 of the embryo transfer (ET) cycle versus no injury, and one study compared endometrial injury on the day of oocyte retrieval versus no injury. Overall, eight of the 14 included studies were deemed to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain.In studies comparing endometrial injury performed between day 7 of the previous cycle and day 7 of the ET cycle versus no intervention or a sham procedure, endometrial injury was associated with an increase in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate: RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.85; P value 0.01; nine RCTs; 1496 women; I² = 53%; moderate-quality evidence. In other words, moderate-quality evidence suggests that if 26% of women achieve live birth without endometrial injury, between 28% and 48% will achieve live birth with endometrial injury. A sensitivity analysis removing the studies at high risk of bias showed no difference in effect.There was no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, however the evidence is of low-quality: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.53; P value 0.06; eight RCTs; 500 clinical pregnancies; I² = 10%; low-quality evidence.Endometrial injury was also associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate: RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.61; P value 0.002; 13 RCTs; 1972 women; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence. This suggests that if 30% of women achieve clinical pregnancy without endometrial injury, between 33% and 48% will achieve clinical pregnancy with this intervention.Endometrial injury was associated with increased pain, however the evidence was of very low quality. One study reported pain on a VAS scale: MD 4.60, 95% CI 3.98 to 5.22; P value < 0.00001; one RCT; 158 women. Two studies reported the number of pain complaints after the procedure; one recorded no events in either group, and the other reported that endometrial injury increased pain complaints: OR 8.65, 95% CI 2.49 to 30.10; P value 0.0007; one RCT; 101 women.Results from the only randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing endometrial injury on the day of oocyte retrieval versus no injury, reported that this endometrial injury markedly decreased live birth (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69; P value 0.004; 156 women; low-quality evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.71; P value 0.003; one RCT; 156 women; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence indicates that endometrial injury performed between day 7 of the previous cycle and day 7 of the embryo transfer (ET) cycle is associated with an improvement in live birth and clinical pregnancy rates in women with more than two previous embryo transfers. There is no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, multiple pregnancy or bleeding. The procedure is mildly painful. Endometrial injury on the day of oocyte retrieval is associated with a reduction of clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates.Although current evidence suggests some benefit of endometrial injury, we need evidence from well-designed trials that avoid instrumentation of the uterus in the preceding three months, do not cause endometrial damage in the control group, stratify the results for women with and without recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and report live birth.

Add-back therapy with GnRH analogues for uterine fibroids.

BACKGROUND: Uterine fibroids (also known as leiomyomas) are the most common benign pelvic tumours among women. They may be asymptomatic, or may be associated with pelvic symptoms such as bleeding and pain. Medical treatment of this condition is limited and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are the most effective agents. Long-term treatment with such agents, however, is restricted due to their adverse effects. The addition of other medications during treatment with GnRH analogues, a strategy known as add-back therapy, may limit these side effects. There is concern, however, that add-back therapy may also limit the efficacy of the GnRH analogues and that it may not be able to completely prevent their adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the short-term (within 12 months) effectiveness and safety of add-back therapy for women using GnRH analogues for uterine fibroids associated with excessive uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, or urinary symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, PsycINFO; and electronic registries of ongoing trials including ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. All searches were from database inception to 16 June 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included women with uterine fibroids experiencing irregular or intense uterine bleeding, cyclic or non-cyclic pelvic pain, or urinary symptoms, and that compared treatment with a GnRH analogue plus add-back therapy versus a GnRH analogue alone or combined with placebo were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed the identified titles and abstracts for potentially eligible records. Two review authors reviewed eligible studies and independently extracted data. Two authors independently assessed the studies' risk of bias. They assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs were included in the review. Data were extracted from 12 studies (622 women). The primary outcome was quality of life (QoL).Add-back therapy with medroxyprogesterone (MPA): no studies reported QoL or uterine bleeding. There was no evidence of effect in relation to bone mass (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.62 to 1.38, 1 study, 16 women, P = 0.45, low quality evidence) and MPA was associated with a larger uterine volume (mean difference (MD) 342.19 cm(3), 95% CI 77.58 to 606.80, 2 studies, 32 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).Tibolone: this was associated with a higher QoL but the estimate was imprecise and the effect could be clinically insignificant, small or large (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.85, 1 study, 110 women, P = 0.02, low quality evidence). It was also associated with a decreased loss of bone mass, which could be insignificant, small or moderate (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.7, 3 studies, 160 women, I(2) = 7%, moderate quality evidence). Tibolone may, however, have been associated with larger uterine volumes (MD 23.89 cm(3), 95% CI= 8.13 to 39.66, 6 studies, 365 women, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence) and more uterine bleeding (results were not combined but three studies demonstrated greater bleeding with tibolone while two other studies demonstrated no bleeding in either group). Four studies (268 women; not pooled owing to extreme heterogeneity) reported a large benefit on vasomotor symptoms in the tibolone group.Raloxifene: there was no evidence of an effect on QoL (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.34, 1 study, 74 women, P = 0.62, low quality evidence), while there was a beneficial impact on bone mass (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.45, 1 study, 91 women, P < 0.00001, low quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of effect on uterine volume (MD 27.1 cm(3), 95% CI -17.94 to 72.14, 1 study, 91 women, P = 0.24, low quality evidence), uterine bleeding or severity of vasomotor symptoms (MD 0.2 hot flushes/day, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.74, 1 study, 91 women, P = 0.46, low quality evidence).Estriol: no studies reported QoL, uterine size, uterine bleeding or vasomotor symptoms. Add-back with estriol may have led to decreased loss of bone mass, from results of a single study (SMD 3.93, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.16, 1 study, 12 women, P = 0.0005, low quality evidence).Ipriflavone: no studies reported QoL, uterine size or uterine bleeding. Iproflavone was associated with decreased loss of bone mass in a single study (SMD 2.71, 95% CI 2.14 to 3.27, 1 study, 95 women, P < 0.00001, low quality evidence); there was no evidence of an effect on the rate of vasomotor symptoms (RR 0.67, 95% Cl 0.44 to 1.02, 1 study, 95 women, P = 0.06, low quality evidence).Conjugated estrogens: no studies reported QoL, uterine size, uterine bleeding or vasomotor symptoms. One study suggested that adding conjugated estrogens to GnRH analogues resulted in a larger decrease in uterine volume in the placebo group (MD 105.2 cm(3), 95% CI 27.65 to 182.75, 1 study, 27 women, P = 0.008, very low quality evidence).Nine of 12 studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain, most commonly lack of blinding. All studies followed participants for a maximum of six months. This short-term follow-up is usually insufficient to observe any significant effect of the treatment on bone health (such as the occurrence of fractures), limiting the findings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was low or moderate quality evidence that tibolone, raloxifene, estriol and ipriflavone help to preserve bone density and that MPA and tibolone may reduce vasomotor symptoms. Larger uterine volume was an adverse effect associated with some add-back therapies (MPA, tibolone and conjugated estrogens). For other comparisons, outcomes of interest were not reported or study findings were inconclusive.

Combined oral contraceptive for treatment of women with uterine fibroids and abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We aimed at assessing the efficacy of combined oral contraceptives (COC) in treating women with uterine leiomyomata and heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), as well as their effect over quality of life (QoL), tumor size, and hemoglobin concentration. METHODS: We searched various electronic databases and reference lists from all included studies. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials were selected, and two trials were considered eligible - one randomized and one 'pseudo'-randomized. RESULTS: COCs performed less well than levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems (LNG-IUSs) in controlling HMB, improving QoL, and improving the hemoglobin concentration, whereas the estimate was not sufficiently precise to define whether COCs were better than, equal to, or worse than LNG-IUSs in reducing tumor size. It must be stressed that these results are based on low-quality evidence, stemming from a single trial. Additionally, COCs were more effective than placebo in tumor size reduction, another conclusion based on another single study, considered as being at a high risk of bias and judged as very low-quality evidence. CONCLUSION: Evidence regarding the use of COCs as treatment for women with symptomatic fibroids is very scarce and of low quality, and we are very uncertain about the real efficacy of such treatment.

Melatonin supplementation during controlled ovarian stimulation for women undergoing assisted reproductive technology: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the best evidence available regarding the effect of melatonin supplementation during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) on the main assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT). SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Women undergoing COS for ART. INTERVENTION(S): Melatonin supplementation during COS for women undergoing ART. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, number of retrieved oocytes, miscarriage rate, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate, and number of congenital abnormalities. Comparisons were performed using risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD). RESULT(S): Five RCTs were considered eligible, and their data were extracted and included in a meta-analysis. No studies reported live-birth or congenital abnormalities. Our estimates were imprecise for distinguishing between no effect and benefit considering clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.50, five studies, 680 women, low quality-evidence) and the number of oocytes retrieved (MD, 0.6; 95% CI, -0.2-2.2, five studies, 680 women, low quality-evidence). Our estimates were imprecise for distinguishing among harm, no effect, and benefit considering miscarriage (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.43-2.68, two studies, 143 clinical pregnancies, low quality-evidence) and interventions to reduce the risk of OHSS (RR,1.01; 95% CI, 0.33-3.08, one study, 358 women, low quality-evidence). CONCLUSION(S): More studies investigating the role of melatonin supplementation are still needed before recommending its use in clinical practice.

Cabergoline for the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of using cabergoline for reducing the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). PATIENTS: Women submitted to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for assisted reproduction. INTERVENTIONS: Cabergoline. SETTING: Fertility centers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Moderate-severe OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, number of retrieved oocytes, miscarriage, congenital abnormalities. Comparisons were performed with the use of risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULT(S): Eight RCTs were considered to be eligible; data from seven studies could be extracted and included in the meta-analysis. Cabergoline reduces the risk of moderate-severe OHSS (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.29-0.51, 7 studies, 858 women) and probably has no clinically relevant negative impact on clinical pregnancy (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78-1.34, 4 studies, 561 women) or on the number of retrieved oocytes (MD 1.15, 95% CI -0.76 to 3.07, 5 studies, 628 women). However, our estimates were imprecise for distinguishing between substantial harm, no effect, and substantial benefit considering live birth (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71-1.48, 1 study, 200 women), and miscarriage (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76, 3 studies, 194 pregnant women). No studies reported congenital abnormalities. CONCLUSION(S): Cabergoline reduces the occurrence of moderate-severe OHSS. Cabergoline is unlikely to have a clinically relevant negative impact on clinical pregnancy or on the number of retrieved oocytes. However, we are still uncertain of its impact on live birth, miscarriage, and congenital abnormalities.