Monopolar versus bipolar laparoscopic ovarian drilling in clomiphene-resistant polycystic ovaries (PCO): a preliminary study

Data integrity of 14 randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

A review of the literature on iron treatments for iron-deficient anaemia in pregnancy indicated duplication of baseline and outcome tables in two separate randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that share only a single author.

AIM

To assess the integrity of randomised clinical trials from Dr A.M. Darwish, Assiut University, Egypt.

DESIGN

Assessment of Research Integrity.

METHODS

We tabulated the characteristics of studies, compared baseline and outcome tables between articles and looked for implausible findings. We used the distribution of baseline p-values to assess whether the summary statistics of baseline characteristics were consistent with properly conducted randomisation.

RESULTS

We identified 14 RCTs (1,405 participants) published between October 2004 and September 2019. Two pairs of studies showed considerable similarities in baseline characteristics, while another pair of studies was plagiarized. The analysis of baseline p-values indicated a low probability that all the studies featured randomised treatment allocation.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis of the RCTs of Dr Darwish suggests possible integrity problems. We recommend a critical investigation of the studies that have not been retracted. Until that has been completed, these studies should not be used to inform clinical practice.

Ovarian Drilling: Back to the Future

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the leading cause of anovulatory infertility. The complex metabolic dysregulation at the base of this syndrome often renders infertility management challenging. Many pharmacological strategies have been applied for the induction of ovulation with a non-negligible rate of severe complications such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancies. Ovarian drilling (OD) is currently being adopted as a second-line treatment, to be performed in case of medical therapy. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD), the contemporary version of ovarian wedge resection, is considered effective for gonadotropins in terms of live birth rates, but without the risks of iatrogenic complications in gonadotropin therapy. Its endocrinal effects are longer lasting and, after the accomplishment of this procedure, ovarian responsiveness to successive ovulation induction agents is enhanced. Traditional LOD, however, is burdened by the potential risks of iatrogenic adhesions and decreased ovarian reserve and, therefore, should only be considered in selected cases. To overcome these limits, novel tailored and mini-invasive approaches, which are still waiting for wide acceptance, have been introduced, although their role is still not well-clarified and none of them have provided enough evidence in terms of efficacy and safety.

Variation of Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling for Clomiphene Citrate-resistant Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and Infertility: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate novel surgical variations of laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) and compare with standard bilateral LOD.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched, including Cochrane database, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Virtual Health Library, OpenSIGLE, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and The Chinese Clinical Trial Register in February 2019.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating LOD for patients with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome and infertility and reporting reproductive outcomes, surgical complications, serum indexes, menses resumption, and ultrasound results were included. Quality and risk of bias were evaluated by 2 authors, respectively.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

A total of 20 RCTs with 1615 patients were included. Evaluation of the quality of evidence for each study was based on each study's limitations of 5 outcome domains described by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and found to be moderate to very low. Live births were only reported by 4 studies. Unilateral LOD did not differ with bilateral LOD in reproductive outcomes, such as pregnancy (p = .11, I² = 75%), ovulation (p = .08, I² = 0%), miscarriage (p = .61), and menstruation resumption (p = .06). There was insufficient evidence regarding efficacy and safety of novel methods of LOD, such as transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (1 RCT) and micro-LOD (3 RCTs). Evidence regarding the suitable number of ovarian punctures, duration of drilling, and antimüllerian hormone or antral follicle numbers following LOD were inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral LOD seems to be suitable replacement for conventional bilateral LOD for clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome, although more studies involving long-term reproductive efficacy, adverse events, and varying forms of LOD are warranted.

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common condition affecting 8% to 13% of reproductive-aged women. In the past clomiphene citrate (CC) used to be the first-line treatment in women with PCOS. Ovulation induction with letrozole should be the first-line treatment according to new guidelines, but the use of letrozole is off-label. Consequently, CC is still commonly used. Approximately 20% of women on CC do not ovulate. Women who are CC-resistant can be treated with gonadotrophins or other medical ovulation-induction agents. These medications are not always successful, can be time-consuming and can cause adverse events like multiple pregnancies and cycle cancellation due to an excessive response. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is a surgical alternative to medical treatment. There are risks associated with surgery, such as complications from anaesthesia, infection, and adhesions.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LOD with or without medical ovulation induction compared with medical ovulation induction alone for women with anovulatory polycystic PCOS and CC-resistance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 8 October 2019, 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) of women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance who underwent LOD with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone, LOD with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) versus ART, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, or different techniques of LOD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE method. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), ovulation, costs, and quality of life were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 38 trials (3326 women). The evidence was very low- to moderate-quality; the main limitations were due to poor reporting of study methods, with downgrading for risks of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment) and lack of blinding. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone Pooled results suggest LOD may decrease live birth slightly when compared with medical ovulation induction alone (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.92; 9 studies, 1015 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggest that if the chance of live birth following medical ovulation induction alone is 42%, the chance following LOD would be between 28% and 40%. The sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs with low risk of selection bias suggested there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; 4 studies, 415 women; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). LOD probably reduces multiple pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66; 14 studies, 1161 women; I² = 2%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if we assume the risk of multiple pregnancy following medical ovulation induction is 5.0%, the risk following LOD would be between 0.9% and 3.4%. Restricting to RCTs that followed women for six months after LOD and six cycles of ovulation induction only, the results for live birth were consistent with the main analysis. There may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; 21 studies, 2016 women; I² = 19%; low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; 19 studies, 1909 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). OHSS was a very rare event. LOD may reduce OHSS (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91; 8 studies, 722 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.78; 1 study, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available on multiple pregnancy. The likelihood of a clinical pregnancy is uncertain between the treatments, due to the quality of the evidence and the large heterogeneity between the studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; 7 studies, 470 women; I² = 60%, very low-quality evidence). Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is not sufficient to justify a conclusion on miscarriage (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33; 2 studies, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Other comparisons Due to lack of evidence and very low-quality data there is uncertainty whether there is a difference for any of the following comparisons: LOD with IVF versus IVF, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, monopolar versus bipolar LOD, and adjusted thermal dose versus fixed thermal dose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with and without medical ovulation induction may decrease the live birth rate in women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance compared with medical ovulation induction alone. But the sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs at low risk of selection bias suggests there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments, due to uncertainty around the estimate. Moderate-quality evidence shows that LOD probably reduces the number of multiple pregnancy. Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy, and there is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage. LOD may result in less OHSS. The quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth, clinical pregnancy or miscarriage rate for the analysis of unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD. There were no data available on multiple pregnancy.