Misleading reporting and interpretation of results in major infertility journals

Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery: A Critical Appraisal of the Literature

Micro- or minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS) have been the latest addition to the glaucoma surgical treatment paradigm. This term refers not to a single surgery, but rather to a group of distinct procedures and devices that aim to decrease intraocular pressure. Broadly, MIGS can be categorized into surgeries that increase the trabecular outflow [Trabectome, iStent (first and second generations), Hydrus microstent, Kahook Dual Blade and gonioscopy-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy], surgeries that increase suprachoroidal outflow (Cypass microstent and iStent Supra), and conjunctival bleb-forming procedures (Xen gel stent and InnFocus microshunt). Compared to traditional glaucoma surgeries, such as trabeculectomy and glaucoma drainage device implantation (Ahmed, Baerveldt, and Molteno valves), MIGS are touted to have less severe complications and shorter surgical time. MIGS represent an evolving field, and the efficacy and complications of each procedure should be considered independently, giving more importance to high-quality and longer-term studies.

Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?

PURPOSE

To evaluate if the authors of published systematic reviews (SRs) reported the level of quality of evidence (QoE) in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals and to analyze if they used an appropriate wording to describe it.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study. We searched in PubMed for SRs published in 2017 in the five infertility journals with the highest impact factor. We analyzed the proportion of SRs published in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals that reported the SRs' QoE, and the proportion of those SRs in which authors used consistent wording to describe QoE and magnitude of effect.

RESULTS

The QoE was reported in only 21.4% of the 42 included SRs and in less than 10% of the abstracts. Although we did not find important differences in the report of QoE of those that showed statistically significant differences or not, p value was associated with the wording chosen by the authors. We found inconsistent reporting of the size the effect estimate in 54.8% (23/42) and in the level of QoE in 92.9% (39/42). Whereas the effect size was more consistently expressed in studies with statistically significant findings, QoE was better expressed in those cases in which the p value was over 0.05.

CONCLUSION

We found that in 2017, less than 25% of the authors reported the overall QoE when publishing SRs. Authors focused more on statistical significance as a binary concept than on methodological limitations like study design, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias. Authors should make efforts to report the QoE and interpret results accordingly.

A systematic review and standardized clinical validity assessment of male infertility genes

STUDY QUESTION

Which genes are confidently linked to human monogenic male infertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Our systematic literature search and clinical validity assessment reveals that a total of 78 genes are currently confidently linked to 92 human male infertility phenotypes.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The discovery of novel male infertility genes is rapidly accelerating with the availability of next-generating sequencing methods, but the quality of evidence for gene-disease relationships varies greatly. In order to improve genetic research, diagnostics and counseling, there is a need for an evidence-based overview of the currently known genes.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a systematic literature search and evidence assessment for all publications in Pubmed until December 2018 covering genetic causes of male infertility and/or defective male genitourinary development.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Two independent reviewers conducted the literature search and included papers on the monogenic causes of human male infertility and excluded papers on genetic association or risk factors, karyotype anomalies and/or copy number variations affecting multiple genes. Next, the quality and the extent of all evidence supporting selected genes was weighed by a standardized scoring method and used to determine the clinical validity of each gene-disease relationship as expressed by the following six categories: no evidence, limited, moderate, strong, definitive or unable to classify.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

From a total of 23 526 records, we included 1337 publications about monogenic causes of male infertility leading to a list of 521 gene-disease relationships. The clinical validity of these gene-disease relationships varied widely and ranged from definitive (n = 38) to strong (n = 22), moderate (n = 32), limited (n = 93) or no evidence (n = 160). A total of 176 gene-disease relationships could not be classified because our scoring method was not suitable.

LARGE SCALE DATA

Not applicable.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our literature search was limited to Pubmed.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The comprehensive overview will aid researchers and clinicians in the field to establish gene lists for diagnostic screening using validated gene-disease criteria and help to identify gaps in our knowledge of male infertility. For future studies, the authors discuss the relevant and important international guidelines regarding research related to gene discovery and provide specific recommendations for the field of male infertility.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by a VICI grant from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (918-15-667 to J.A.V.), the Royal Society, and Wolfson Foundation (WM160091 to J.A.V.) as well as an investigator award in science from the Wellcome Trust (209451 to J.A.V.).

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

None.

The diagnosis of male infertility: an analysis of the evidence to support the development of global WHO guidance-challenges and future research opportunities

BACKGROUND

Herein, we describe the consensus guideline methodology, summarize the evidence-based recommendations we provided to the World Health Organization (WHO) for their consideration in the development of global guidance and present a narrative review of the diagnosis of male infertility as related to the eight prioritized (problem or population (P), intervention (I), comparison (C) and outcome(s) (O) (PICO)) questions. Additionally, we discuss the challenges and research gaps identified during the synthesis of this evidence.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The aim of this paper is to present an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of male infertility as related to the eight prioritized PICO questions.

SEARCH METHODS

Collating the evidence to support providing recommendations involved a collaborative process as developed by WHO, namely: identification of priority questions and critical outcomes; retrieval of up-to-date evidence and existing guidelines; assessment and synthesis of the evidence; and the formulation of draft recommendations to be used for reaching consensus with a wide range of global stakeholders. For each draft recommendation the quality of the supporting evidence was then graded and assessed for consideration during a WHO consensus.

OUTCOMES

Evidence was synthesized and recommendations were drafted to address the diagnosis of male infertility specifically encompassing the following: What is the prevalence of male infertility and what proportion of infertility is attributable to the male? Is it necessary for all infertile men to undergo a thorough evaluation? What is the clinical (ART/non ART) value of traditional semen parameters? What key male lifestyle factors impact on fertility (focusing on obesity, heat and tobacco smoking)? Do supplementary oral antioxidants or herbal therapies significantly influence fertility outcomes for infertile men? What are the evidence-based criteria for genetic screening of infertile men? How does a history of neoplasia and related treatments in the male impact on (his and his partner's) reproductive health and fertility options? And lastly, what is the impact of varicocele on male fertility and does correction of varicocele improve semen parameters and/or fertility?

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This evidence synthesis analysis has been conducted in a manner to be considered for global applicability for the diagnosis of male infertility.