Mixed models for repetitive measurements - the basics.

Linear mixed models are regularly used within the field of reproductive medicine. This manuscript explains the basics of mixed model, when mixed models could be used and how they could be applied.

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines on maternal and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in women before or during pregnancy on SARS-CoV-2 infection-related, pregnancy, offspring and reactogenicity outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Major databases between December 2019 and January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Nine pairs of reviewers contributed to study selection. We included test-negative designs, comparative cohorts and randomised trials on effects of COVID-19 vaccines on infection-related and pregnancy outcomes. Non-comparative cohort studies reporting reactogenicity outcomes were also included. QUALITY ASSESSMENT, DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We undertook random-effects meta-analysis and reported findings as HRs, risk ratios (RRs), ORs or rates with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Sixty-seven studies (1 813 947 women) were included. Overall, in test-negative design studies, pregnant women fully vaccinated with any COVID-19 vaccine had 61% reduced odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.75; 4 studies, 23 927 women; I2=87.2%) and 94% reduced odds of hospital admission (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.71; 2 studies, 868 women; I2=92%). In adjusted cohort studies, the risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy was reduced by 12% (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.92; 2 studies; 115 085 women), while caesarean section was reduced by 9% (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98; 6 studies; 30 192 women). We observed an 8% reduction in the risk of neonatal intensive care unit admission (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 2 studies; 54 569 women) in babies born to vaccinated versus not vaccinated women. In general, vaccination during pregnancy was not associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy or perinatal outcomes. Pain at the injection site was the most common side effect reported (77%, 95% CI 52% to 94%; 11 studies; 27 195 women). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and related complications in pregnant women. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178076.

A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project.

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INSPECT-SR project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion. Methods: We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorised these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list. Results: Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool. Conclusions: A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.

Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. SEARCH METHODS: We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others. OUTCOMES: The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach.

COVID-19 in pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the risk and prevalence of pregnancy loss.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are more likely to experience preterm birth and their neonates are more likely to be stillborn or admitted to a neonatal unit. The World Health Organization declared in May 2023 an end to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a global health emergency. However, pregnant women are still becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and there is limited information available regarding the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We conducted this systematic review to determine the prevalence of early pregnancy loss in women with SARS-Cov-2 infection and compare the risk to pregnant women without SARS-CoV-2 infection. SEARCH METHODS: Our systematic review is based on a prospectively registered protocol. The search of PregCov19 consortium was supplemented with an extra electronic search specifically on pregnancy loss in pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 10 March 2023 in PubMed, Google Scholar, and LitCovid. We included retrospective and prospective studies of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, provided that they contained information on pregnancy losses in the first and/or second trimester. Primary outcome was miscarriage defined as a pregnancy loss before 20 weeks of gestation, however, studies that reported loss up to 22 or 24 weeks were also included. Additionally, we report on studies that defined the pregnancy loss to occur at the first and/or second trimester of pregnancy without specifying gestational age, and for second trimester miscarriage only when the study presented stillbirths and/or foetal losses separately from miscarriages. Data were stratified into first and second trimester. Secondary outcomes were ectopic pregnancy (any extra-uterine pregnancy), and termination of pregnancy. At least three researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and risk differences (RDs) with corresponding 95% CI and pooled the data using random effects meta-analysis. To estimate risk prevalence, we performed meta-analysis on proportions. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2. OUTCOMES: We included 120 studies comprising a total of 168 444 pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection; of which 18 233 women were in their first or second trimester of pregnancy. Evidence level was considered to be of low to moderate certainty, mostly owing to selection bias. We did not find evidence of an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and miscarriage (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81-1.48; I2 = 0.0%; RD 0.0012, 95% CI -0.0103 to 0.0127; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4439 women). Miscarriage occurred in 9.9% (95% CI 6.2-14.0%; I2 = 68%; 46 studies, 1797 women) of the women with SARS CoV-2 infection in their first trimester and in 1.2% (95% CI 0.3-2.4%; I2 = 34%; 33 studies; 3159 women) in the second trimester. The proportion of ectopic pregnancies in women with SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.4% (95% CI 0.02-4.2%; I2 = 66%; 14 studies, 950 women). Termination of pregnancy occurred in 0.6% of the women (95% CI 0.01-1.6%; I2 = 79%; 39 studies; 1166 women). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Our study found no indication that SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first or second trimester increases the risk of miscarriages. To provide better risk estimates, well-designed studies are needed that include pregnant women with and without SARS-CoV-2 infection at conception and early pregnancy and consider the association of clinical manifestation and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection with pregnancy loss, as well as potential confounding factors such as previous pregnancy loss. For clinical practice, pregnant women should still be advised to take precautions to avoid risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation for unexplained infertility: a collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: IVF and IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) are widely used in managing unexplained infertility. IUI-OS is generally considered first-line therapy, followed by IVF only if IUI-OS is unsuccessful after several attempts. However, there is a growing interest in using IVF for immediate treatment because it is believed to lead to higher live birth rates and shorter time to pregnancy. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVF versus IUI-OS had varied study designs and findings. Some RCTs used complex algorithms to combine IVF and IUI-OS, while others had unequal follow-up time between arms or compared treatments on a per-cycle basis, which introduced biases. Comparing cumulative live birth rates of IVF and IUI-OS within a consistent time frame is necessary for a fair head-to-head comparison. Previous meta-analyses of RCTs did not consider the time it takes to achieve pregnancy, which is not possible using aggregate data. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) allows standardization of follow-up time in different trials and time-to-event analysis methods. We performed this IPD-MA to investigate if IVF increases cumulative live birth rate considering the time leading to pregnancy and reduces multiple pregnancy rate compared to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register to identify RCTs that completed data collection before June 2021. A search update was carried out in January 2023. RCTs that compared IVF/ICSI to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility were eligible. We invited author groups of eligible studies to join the IPD-MA and share the deidentified IPD of their RCTs. IPD were checked and standardized before synthesis. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. OUTCOMES: Of eight potentially eligible RCTs, two were considered awaiting classification. In the other six trials, four shared IPD of 934 women, of which 550 were allocated to IVF and 383 to IUI-OS. Because the interventions were unable to blind, two RCTs had a high risk of bias, one had some concerns, and one had a low risk of bias. Considering the time to pregnancy leading to live birth, the cumulative live birth rate was not significantly higher in IVF compared to that in IUI-OS (4 RCTs, 908 women, 50.3% versus 43.2%, hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.81-1.74, I2 = 42.4%). For the safety primary outcome, the rate of multiple pregnancy was not significantly lower in IVF than IUI-OS (3 RCTs, 890 women, 3.8% versus 5.2% of all couples randomized, odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.41-1.50, I2 = 0.0%). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: There is no robust evidence that in couples with unexplained infertility IVF achieves pregnancy leading to live birth faster than IUI-OS. IVF and IUI-OS are both viable options in terms of effectiveness and safety for managing unexplained infertility. The associated costs of interventions and the preference of couples need to be weighed in clinical decision-making.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INSPECT-SR project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare related interventions. Methods and analysis: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: 1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, 2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, 3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in 4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format, 5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies, and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.

Home-based monitoring of ovulation to time frozen embryo transfers in the Netherlands (Antarctica-2): an open-label, nationwide, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The growing field of assisted reproductive techniques, including frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET), should lead the way to the best sustainable health care without compromising pregnancy chances. Correct timing of FET is crucial to allow implantation of the thawed embryo. Nowadays, timing based on hospital-controlled monitoring of ovulation in the natural cycle of a woman is the preferred strategy because of the assumption of favourable fertility prospects. However, home-based monitoring is a simple method to prevent patient travel and any associated environmental concerns. We compared ongoing pregnancy rates after home-based monitoring versus hospital-controlled monitoring with ovulation triggering. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial was undertaken in 23 hospitals and clinics in the Netherlands. Women aged between 18 and 44 years with a regular ovulatory menstrual cycle were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via a web-based randomisation program to home-based monitoring or hospital-controlled monitoring. Those who analysed the data were masked to the groups; those collecting the data were not. All endpoints were analysed by intention to treat and per protocol. Non-inferiority was established when the lower limit of the 90% CI exceeded -4%. This study was registered at the Dutch Trial Register (Trial NL6414). FINDINGS: 1464 women were randomly assigned between April 10, 2018, and April 13, 2022, with 732 allocated to home-based monitoring and 732 to hospital-controlled monitoring. Ongoing pregnancy occurred in 152 (20·8%) of 732 in the home-based monitoring group and in 153 (20·9%) of 732 in the hospital-controlled monitoring group (risk ratio [RR] 0·99 [90% CI 0·81 to 1·22]; risk difference [RD] -0·14 [90% CI -3·63 to 3·36]). The per-protocol analysis confirmed non-inferiority (152 [21·0%] of 725 vs 153 [21·0%] of 727; RR 1·00 (90% CI 0·81 to 1·23); RD -0·08 [90% CI -3·60 to 3·44]). INTERPRETATION: Home-based monitoring of ovulation is non-inferior to hospital-controlled monitoring of ovulation to time FET. FUNDING: The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Series of overviews on miscarriage and recurrent miscarriage.

Miscarriage is a relatively common occurrence with many knowns and unknowns and a profound psychological impact on individuals and couples. The editors felt it was time to publish a series of overviews for Views and Reviews on both sporadic miscarriage and recurrent miscarriage. The series starts with the prevalence of miscarriage and recurrent miscarriage and subsequently describes the psychological impact, what we know of the genetics, whether uterine natural killer cells may play a role, the association with infections, and potential interventions.

Role of infections in miscarriage.

Infections with certain pathogens can lead to perinatal complications. Several infections have been also associated with an increased likelihood of miscarriage. This manuscript discusses these infections, their modes of transmission, the evidence linking them to an increased risk of miscarriage, and whether prevention or treatment strategies are available.

Methotrexate vs expectant management for treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Ectopic pregnancy is an important health condition which affects up to 1 in 100 women. Women who present with mild symptoms and low serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) are often treated with methotrexate (MTX), but expectant management with close monitoring is a feasible alternative. Studies comparing the two treatments have not shown a statistically significant difference in uneventful resolution of ectopic pregnancy, but these studies were too small to define whether certain subgroups could benefit more from either treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) of randomized controlled trials comparing systemic MTX and expectant management in women with tubal ectopic pregnancy and low hCG (<2000 IU/L). A one-stage IPD-MA was performed to assess overall treatment effects of MTX and expectant management to generate a pooled intervention effect. Subgroup analyses and exploratory multivariable analyses were undertaken according to baseline serum hCG and progesterone levels. Primary outcome was treatment success, defined as resolution of clinical symptoms and decline in level of serum hCG to <20 IU/L, or a negative urine pregnancy test by the initial intervention strategy, without any additional treatment. Secondary outcomes were need for blood transfusion, surgical intervention, additional MTX side-effects and hCG resolution times. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO: CRD42021214093. RESULTS: 1547 studies reviewed and 821 remained after duplicates removed. Five studies screened for eligibility and three IPD requested. Two randomized controlled trials supplied IPD, leading to 153 participants for analysis. Treatment success rate was 65/82 (79.3%) after MTX and 48/70 (68.6%) after expectant management (IPD risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.40). Surgical intervention rates were not significantly different: 8/82 (9.8%) vs 13/70 (18.6%) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.23-1.14). Mean time to success was 19.7 days (95% CI 17.4-22.3) after MTX and 21.2 days (95% CI 17.8-25.2) after expectant management (P = 0.25). MTX specific side-effects were reported in 33 MTX compared to four in the expectant group. CONCLUSIONS: Our IPD-MA showed no statistically significant difference in treatment efficacy between MTX and expectant management in women with tubal ectopic pregnancy with low hCG. Initial expectant management could be the preferred strategy due to fewer side-effects.

Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot.

OBJECTIVES: To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of items from piloting, and holding a consensus meeting. The initial checklist was set-up by a core group who had been involved in the assessment of problematic RCTs for several years. We piloted this in a consensus panel of several stakeholders, including health professionals, reviewers, journal editors, policymakers, researchers, and evidence-synthesis specialists. Each member was asked to score three articles with the checklist and the results were then discussed in consensus meetings. OUTCOME: The Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials (TRACT) checklist includes 19 items organised into seven domains that are applicable to every RCT: 1) Governance, 2) Author Group, 3) Plausibility of Intervention Usage, 4) Timeframe, 5) Drop-out Rates, 6) Baseline Characteristics, and 7) Outcomes. Each item can be answered as either no concerns, some concerns/no information, or major concerns. If a study is assessed and found to have a majority of items rated at a major concern level, then editors, reviewers or evidence synthesizers should consider a more thorough investigation, including assessment of original individual participant data. CONCLUSIONS: The TRACT checklist is the first checklist developed specifically to detect trustworthiness issues in RCTs. It might help editors, publishers and researchers to screen for such issues in submitted or published RCTs in a transparent and replicable manner.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for endometriosis.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 6 to 11% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is medical therapy with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) to reduce pain due to endometriosis. One of the adverse effects of GnRHas is a decreased bone mineral density. In addition to assessing the effect on pain, quality of life, most troublesome symptom and patients' satisfaction, the current review also evaluated the effect on bone mineral density and risk of adverse effects in women with endometriosis who use GnRHas versus other treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of GnRH analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of painful symptoms associated with endometriosis and to determine the effects of GnRHas on bone mineral density of women with endometriosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the trial registries in May 2022 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared GnRHas with other hormonal treatment options, including analgesics, danazol, intra-uterine progestogens, oral or injectable progestogens, gestrinone and also GnRHas compared with no treatment or placebo. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with add-back therapy (hormonal or non-hormonal) or calcium-regulation agents were also included in this review.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology as recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes are relief of overall pain and the objective measurement of bone mineral density. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, quality of life, improvement in the most troublesome symptoms and patient satisfaction.  Due to high risk of bias associated with some of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of selection bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-two studies involving 7355 patients were included. The evidence was very low to low quality: the main limitations of all studies were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.  Trials comparing GnRHas versus no treatment  We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus placebo There may be a decrease in overall pain, reported as pelvic pain scores (RR 2.14; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.24, 1 RCT, n = 87, low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea scores (RR 2.25; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.16, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia scores (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 59, low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness scores (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.50, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. We are uncertain of the effect for pelvic induration, based on the results found after three months of treatment (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.79, 1 RCT, n = 81, low-certainty evidence). Besides, treatment with GnRHas may be associated with a greater incidence of hot flushes at three months of treatment (RR 3.08; 95% CI 1.89 to 5.01, 1 RCT, n = 100, low-certainty evidence). Trials comparing GnRHas versus danazol For overall pain, for women treated with either GnRHas or danazol, a subdivision was made between pelvic tenderness, partly resolved and completely resolved. We are uncertain about the effect on relief of overall pain, when a subdivision was made for overall pain (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.66 to 1.06, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic pain (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.66, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.69, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.77 to 0.37, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic induration (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.39, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.38, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. For pelvic pain (MD 0.50; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and pelvic induration (MD 0.70; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), the complaints may decrease slightly after treatment with GnRHas, compared to danazol, for six months of treatment. Trials comparing GnRHas versus analgesics  We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus intra-uterine progestogens We did not identify any low risk of bias studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents There may be a slight decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) after 12 months treatment with GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents for anterior-posterior spine (MD -7.00; 95% CI -7.53 to -6.47, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and lateral spine (MD -12.40; 95% CI -13.31 to -11.49, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For relief of overall pain, there may be a slight decrease in favour of treatment with GnRHas compared to placebo or oral or injectable progestogens. We are uncertain about the effect when comparing GnRHas with danazol, intra-uterine progestogens or gestrinone. For BMD, there may be a slight decrease when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to gestrinone. There was a bigger decrease of BMD in favour of GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents. However, there may be a slight increase in adverse effects when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to placebo or gestrinone. Due to a very low to low certainty of the evidence, a wide range of outcome measures and a wide range of outcome measurement instruments, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Financial contribution as reason to opt out of non-invasive prenatal testing.

OBJECTIVE: First trimester non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) provides pregnant women with a reliable, non-invasive method to screen for fetal aneuploidies. In the Netherlands, there is a nationwide prenatal screening program in which pregnant women and their partners are counseled about their options around 10 weeks of pregnancy. The first trimester and second trimester scan are fully reimbursed but the NIPT has an own financial contribution of €175 per participant, irrespective of type of insurance. The arguments for this own contribution are fear of uncritical use of NIPT or routinization. NIPT has a relatively stable uptake of 51%, against over 95% for second trimester anomaly scan. We aimed to explore the effect of this financial contribution on the decision to opt out of NIPT. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a survey among 350 pregnant women undergoing a second trimester anomaly scan in our center, Amsterdam UMC, between January 2021 and April 2022. All pregnant women who declined NIPT in the first trimester, were asked to participate and answered 11-13 questions about the decision-making process, the reasons to opt out and the financial contribution. RESULTS: Information about NIPT was desired in 92% of women and 96% felt sufficiently informed. Most women took the decision not to perform NIPT with their partner and did not experience difficulties in taking this decision. The most important reason to decline NIPT was: "Every child is welcome" (69%). "The test was too expensive" was answered in 12% and was significantly correlated with lower maternal age. Additionally, one in five women (19%) said they would have done NIPT if it had been for free, which was significantly higher in younger women. CONCLUSIONS: The own financial contribution plays a role in the decision-making to decline NIPT and partly explains the low uptake in the Netherlands. This suggests that there is no equal access to fetal aneuploidy screening. To overcome this inequality, this own contribution should be abandoned. We speculate that this will have a positive effect on the uptake, which will increase to at least 70% and potentially 94%.

The risk of hypogonadism after testicular sperm extraction in men with various types of azoospermia: a prospective cohort study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the risk of hypogonadism in men with obstructive azoospermia, non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) or Klinefelter syndrome after testicular sperm extraction (TESE)? DESIGN: This prospective longitudinal cohort study was carried out between 2007 and 2015. RESULTS: Around 36% of men with Klinefelter syndrome, 4% of men with obstructive azoospermia and 3% of men with NOA needed testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). Klinefelter syndrome was strongly associated with TRT while no association was found between obstructive azoospermia or NOA and TRT. Irrespective of the pre-operative diagnosis, a higher testosterone concentration before TESE was associated with a lower chance of needing TRT. CONCLUSIONS: Men with obstructive azoospermia or NOA have a similar moderate risk of clinical hypogonadism after TESE, while this risk is much larger for men with Klinefelter syndrome. The risk of clinical hypogonadism is lower when testosterone concentrations are high before TESE.