Evidence of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in subfertility

Antioxidants for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, and two trial registers were searched on 15 February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included men with idiopathic infertility and normal semen parameters or fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 90 studies with a total population of 10,303 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Investigators compared and combined 20 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' certainty: the main limitation was that out of the 67 included studies in the meta-analysis only 20 studies reported clinical pregnancy, and of those 12 reported on live birth. The evidence is current up to February 2021. Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.91, P = 0.02, 12 RCTs, 1283 men, I2 = 44%, very low-certainty evidence). Results in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate suggest that if the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 16%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 17% and 27%. However, this result was based on only 246 live births from 1283 couples in 12 small or medium-sized studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75, 827 men, 8 RCTs, P = 0.27, I2 = 32%). Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47, P < 0.00001, 20 RCTs, 1706 men, I2 = 3%, low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. This suggests that, in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, if the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 15%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 20% and 30%. This result was based on 327 clinical pregnancies from 1706 couples in 20 small studies. Adverse events Miscarriage: only six studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. No evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate was found between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.83, P = 0.27, 6 RCTs, 664 men, I2 = 35%, very low-certainty evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile couples, with male factor infertility, with an expected miscarriage rate of 5%, the risk of miscarriage following the use of an antioxidant would be between 4% and 13%. Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal discomfort when compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.99, P = 0.002, 16 RCTs, 1355 men, I2 = 40%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal discomfort following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 7%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 46 out of 1355 men in 16 small or medium-sized studies, and the certainty of the evidence was rated low and heterogeneity was high. We were unable to draw conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, there is very low-certainty evidence from 12 small or medium-sized randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-certainty evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal discomfort, based on very low-certainty evidence. Subfertile couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials studying infertile men and reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

Antioxidants for female subfertility

BACKGROUND

A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I² = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I² = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I² = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I² = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I² = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I² = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions.

Antioxidants for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility. This review did not examine the use of antioxidants in normospermic men.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers were searched on 1 February 2018, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 studies with a total population of 6264 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Investigators compared and combined 18 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' quality: the main limitation was that out of the 44 included studies in the meta-analysis only 12 studies reported on live birth or clinical pregnancy. The evidence is current up to February 2018.Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.67, P = 0.005, 7 RCTs, 750 men, I² = 40%, low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate, the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 12%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 14% and 26%. However, this result was based on only 124 live births from 750 couples in seven relatively small studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.16; participants = 540 men, 5 RCTs, P = 0.15, I² = 0%).Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.91 to 4.63, P < 0.0001, 11 RCTs, 786 men, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. This suggests that if in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 7%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 12% and 26%. This result was based on 105 clinical pregnancies from 786 couples in 11 small studies.Adverse eventsMiscarriage: only three studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. There was no difference in miscarriage rate between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.60, P = 0.46, 3 RCTs, 247 men, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile men with an expected miscarriage rate of 2%, the chance following the use of an antioxidant would result in the risk of a miscarriage between 1% and 13%.Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal upsets when compared to placebo or no treatment (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.03, P = 0.010, 11 RCTs, 948 men, I² = 50%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal upsets following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 9%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 35 out of 948 men in 10 small or medium-sized studies, and the quality of the evidence was rated very low and was high in heterogeneity.We were unable to draw any conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, there is low-quality evidence from seven small randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-quality evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may also increase. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal upsets but the evidence is of very low quality. Subfertilte couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

Inositol for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Subfertile women are highly motivated to try different adjunctive therapies to have a baby, and the widespread perception is that dietary supplements such as myo-inositol (MI) and D-chiro-insoitol (DCI) are associated with only benefit, and not with harm. Many fertility clinicians currently prescribe MI for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) as pre-treatment to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or for ovulation induction; however no high-quality evidence is available to support this practice. This review assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of inositol in subfertile women with a diagnosis of PCOS.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation of inositol for reproductive outcomes among subfertile women with PCOS who are trying to conceive.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (to July 2018): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and AMED. We also checked reference lists and searched the clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose, or combination of oral inositol versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, or with a fertility agent, or with another type of inositol, among subfertile women with PCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live birth and adverse effects; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and ovulation rates. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model, and we calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by applying GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 1472 subfertile women with PCOS who were receiving myo-inositol as pre-treatment to IVF (11 trials), or during ovulation induction (two trials). These studies compared MI versus placebo, no treatment/standard, melatonin, metformin, clomiphene citrate, or DCI. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' quality. The main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, inconsistency, and lack of reporting of clinically relevant outcomes such as live birth and adverse events.We are uncertain whether MI improves live birth rates when compared to standard treatment among women undergoing IVF (OR 2.42, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.83; P = 0.14; 2 RCTs; 84 women; I² = 0%). Very low-quality evidence suggests that for subfertile women with PCOS undergoing pre-treatment to IVF who have an expected live birth rate of 12%, the rate among women using MI would be between 9% and 51%.We are uncertain whether MI may be associated with a decrease in miscarriage rate when compared to standard treatment (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.86; P = 0.02; 4 RCTs; 535 women; I² = 66%; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS with an expected miscarriage rate of 9% who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, the rate among women using MI would be between 2% and 8%; however this meta-analysis is based primarily on one study, which reported an unusually high miscarriage rate in the control group, and this has resulted in very high heterogeneity. When we removed this trial from the sensitivity analysis, we no longer saw the effect, and we noted no conclusive differences between MI and standard treatment.Low-quality evidence suggests that MI may be associated with little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rates when compared with standard treatment (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.71; P = 0.89; 2 RCTs; 425 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 18%, the rate among women using inositol would be between 12% and 27%.We are uncertain whether MI may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate when compared to standard treatment (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.85; P = 0.22; 4 RCTs; 535 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with PCOS who are undergoing pre-treatment to IVF, with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 26%, the rate among women using MI would be between 24% and 40%. Ovulation rates were not reported for this comparison.Other comparisons included only one trial in each, so for the comparisons MI versus antioxidant, MI versus an insulin-sensitising agent, MI versus an ovulation induction agent, and MI versus another DCI, meta-analysis was not possible.No pooled evidence was available for women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction, as only single trials performed comparison of the insulin-sensitising agent and the ovulation induction agent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In light of available evidence of very low quality, we are uncertain whether MI improves live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate in subfertile women with PCOS undergoing IVF pre-treatment taking MI compared to standard treatment. We are also uncertain whether MI decreases miscarriage rates or multiple pregnancy rates for these same women taking MI compared to standard treatment. No pooled evidence is available for use of MI versus placebo, another antioxidant, insulin-sensitising agents, ovulation induction agents, or another type of inositol for women with PCOS undergoing pre-treatment to IVF. No pooled evidence is available for use of MI in women undergoing ovulation induction.

Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture for Neurological Diseases Conducted in China

Objectives

To investigate the quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for neurological disorders conducted in China before and after the implementation of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) guidelines.

Methods

The quality of reporting for included papers was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from CONSORT and STRICTA. CONSORT and STRICTA were developed in 1996 and 2001, respectively. Thus, for the date of publication we selected 2-year periods, at 5-yearly intervals: 1994–1995; 1999–2000; 2004–2005 and 2009–2010. These selections cover the periods before the publication dates of both guidelines (1996, 2001) and at least 3 years afterwards, and provide reasonably up-to-date data. We calculated the total score for each guideline and compared reported differences during different date ranges.

Results

For CONSORT items (maximum score 8), there was evidence of a slight improvement in reporting between 1994–1995 and 1999–2000 combined (2.5±0.6) and 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 combined (3.0±0.9) (difference 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.8). For STRICTA items (maximum score 17), there was evidence of a slight improvement in reporting between 1994–1995 and 1999–2000 combined (8.9±1.8) and 2004–2005 and 2009–2010 combined (10.3±1.6) (difference 1.4, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.9).

Conclusions

The quality of reporting for studies of acupuncture for neurological disorders has generally improved since the implementation of STRICTA and CONSORT guidelines.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update

PURPOSE

Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).

RESULTS

Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions

Evidence from a well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) is generally considered to be the gold standard that can inform clinical practice and guide decision-making. However, several deficiencies in the reporting of RCTs have frequently been identified, including incomplete, selective, and biased or inconsistent reporting. Such suboptimal reporting may lead to irreproducible results, substantial waste of resources, impaired study validity, erosion of public trust in science, and a high risk of research misconduct. In this article, we present an overview of the reporting of RCTs in the biomedical literature with a focus on the three most common reporting problems: (i) lack of adherence to reporting guidelines, (ii) inconsistencies between trial protocols or registrations and full reports, and (iii) inconsistencies between abstracts and their corresponding full reports. Unsatisfactory levels of adherence to guidelines and frequent inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports, and between abstracts and full reports, were consistently found in various biomedical research fields. A variety of factors were found to be associated with these reporting challenges. Improved reporting can build public trust and credibility of science, save resources, and enhance the ethical integrity of research. Therefore, joint efforts from the various sectors of the biomedical community (researchers, journal editors and reviewers, educators, healthcare providers, and other research consumers) are needed to reduce and reverse the current suboptimal state of RCT reporting in the literature.

Antioxidants for female subfertility

BACKGROUND

A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2016) with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of appropriate studies and searched for ongoing trials in the clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the dichotomous outcomes of live birth, clinical pregnancy and adverse events. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by applying GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 trials involving 6510 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including combinations of antioxidants, N-acetyl-cysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, D-chiro-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, pentoxifylline and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant.Very low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may be associated with an increased live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.12, P > 0.001, 8 RCTs, 651 women, I2 = 47%). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 20%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 26% and 43%.Very low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.76, P < 0.001, 26 RCTs, 4271 women, I2 = 66%). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 22%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 27% and 33%. Heterogeneity was moderately high.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.08, P = 0.14, 18 RCTs, 2834 women, I2 = 23%, very low quality evidence). This suggests that, among subfertile women with an expected miscarriage rate of 7%, use of antioxidants would be expected to result in a miscarriage rate of between 4% and 7%. There was also insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.38, P = 0.98, 8 RCTs, 2163 women, I2 = 4%, very low quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 8%, use of antioxidants would be expected to result in a multiple pregnancy rate between 6% and 11%. Likewise, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10, P = 0.47, 3 RCTs, 343 women, I2 = 0%, very low quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected gastrointestinal disturbance rate of 2%, use of antioxidants would be expected to result in a rate between 1% and 11%. Overall adverse events were reported by 35 trials in the meta-analysis, but there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions.Only one trial reported on live birth, clinical pregnancy or adverse effects in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, and no conclusions could be drawn.Very low-quality evidence suggests that pentoxifylline may be associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.56, P = 0.009, 3 RCTs, 276 women, I2 = 0%). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 25%, the rate among women using pentoxifylline would be between 28% and 53%.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.46 to 3.90, P = 0.58, 3 RCTs, 276 women, I2 = 0%) or multiple pregnancy (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.09, one RCT, 112 women, very low quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected miscarriage rate of 4%, the rate among women using pentoxifylline would be between 2% and 15%. For multiple pregnancy, the data suggest that among subfertile women with an expected multiple pregnancy rate of 9%, the rate among women using pentoxifylline would be between 2% and 23%.The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, there was very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may provide benefit for subfertile women, but insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about adverse events. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Assisted reproductive technologies for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. The use of these treatments has been subject of discussion. Knowledge on the effectiveness of fertility treatments for male subfertility with different grades of severity is limited. Possibly, couples are exposed to unnecessary or ineffective treatments on a large scale.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different fertility treatments (expectant management, timed intercourse (TI), IUI, IVF and ICSI) for couples whose subfertility appears to be due to abnormal sperm parameters.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all publications that described randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the treatment for male subfertility. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the National Research Register from inception to 14 April 2015, and web-based trial registers from January 1985 to April 2015. We applied no language restrictions. We checked all references in the identified trials and background papers and contacted authors to identify relevant published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing different treatment options for male subfertility. These were expectant management, TI (with or without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH)), IUI (with or without OH), IVF and ICSI. We included only couples with abnormal sperm parameters.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. They resolved disagreements by discussion with the rest of the review authors. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per couple randomised.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 10 RCTs (757 couples). The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and inconsistency. IUI versus TI (five RCTs)Two RCTs compared IUI with TI in natural cycles. There were no data on live birth or OHSS. We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy rates (2 RCTs, 62 couples: odds ratio (OR) 4.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 102, very low quality evidence; there were no events in one of the studies).Three RCTs compared IUI with TI both in cycles with OH. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 81 couples: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.59; low quality evidence) or pregnancy rates (3 RCTs, 202 couples: OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.07; I(2) = 11%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the 62 women had OHSS.One RCT compared IUI in cycles with OH with TI in natural cycles. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 44 couples: OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 81.35; very low quality evidence). Data on OHSS were not available. IUI in cycles with OH versus IUI in natural cycles (five RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (3 RCTs, 346 couples: OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.33; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence) and pregnancy rates (4 RCTs, 399 couples: OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.82; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. IVF versus IUI in natural cycles or cycles with OH (two RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF versus IUI in natural cycles (1 RCT, 53 couples: OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.35; low quality evidence) or IVF versus IUI in cycles with OH (2 RCTs, 86 couples: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.45; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the women had OHSS.Overall, we found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of live birth, pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage). However, most of the evidence was very low quality.There were no studies on IUI in natural cycles versus TI in stimulated cycles, IVF versus TI, ICSI versus TI, ICSI versus IUI (with OH) or ICSI versus IVF.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in safety and effectiveness between different treatments for male subfertility. More research is needed.

Trends in 'poor responder' research: lessons learned from RCTs in assisted conception

BACKGROUND

A substantial minority of women undergoing IVF will under-respond to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. These women-so-called 'poor responders'-suffer persistently reduced success rates after IVF. Currently, no single intervention is unanimously accepted as beneficial in overcoming poor ovarian response (POR). This has been supported by the available research on POR, which consists mainly of randomized controlled trials (RCTs ) with an inherent high-risk of bias. The aim of this review was to critically appraise the available experimental trials on POR and provide guidance towards more useful-less wasteful-future research.

METHODS

A comprehensive review was undertaken of RCTs on 'poor responders' published in the last 15 years. Data on various methodological traits as well as important clinical characteristics were extracted from the included studies and summarized, with a view to identifying deficiencies from which lessons can be learned. Based on this analysis, recommendations were provided for further research in this field of assisted conception.

RESULTS

We selected and analysed 75 RCTs. A valid, 'low-risk' randomization method was reported in three out of four RCTs. An improving trend in reporting concealment of patient allocation was also evident over the 15-year period. In contrast, <1 in 10 RCTs 'blinded' patients and <1 in 5 RCTs 'blinded' staff to the proposed intervention. Only 1 in 10 RCTs 'blinded' ultrasound practitioners to patient allocation, when assessing the outcome of early pregnancy. The majority of trials reported an intention-to-treat analysis for at least one of their outcomes, with an improving trend in the recent years. Substantial variation was noted in the definitions used for 'poor responders', the most popular being 'low ovarian response at previous stimulation'. The preferred cut-off value for defining previous low response has been 'less or equal to three retrieved oocytes'. The most popular tests used for diagnosing diminished ovarian reserve have been antral follicle count and FSH. Although the Bologna criteria for POR were only recently introduced, they are expected to become a popular definition in future 'poor responder' trials. Numerous interventions have been studied on 'poor responders'. Most of these have been applied before/during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. The antagonist protocol, the microdose flare protocol and the long down-regulation protocol have been among the most popular interventions. The analysis of outcomes revealed a clear improving trend in reporting live birth. In contrast, only 10% of RCTs reported significant improvement in reproductive outcomes among tested interventions. Twelve 'significant' interventions were reported, each supported by a single 'positive' RCT. Finally, trials of higher methodological quality were more likely to have been published in a high-impact journal.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the majority of published trials on POR suffer from methodological flaws and are, thus, regarded as being high-risk for bias. The same trials have used a variety of definitions for their poor responders and a variety of interventions for their head-to-head comparisons. Not surprisingly, discrepancies are also evident in the findings of trials comparing similar interventions. Based on the identified deficiencies, this novel type of 'methodology and clinical' review has introduced custom recommendations on how to improve future experimental research in the 'poor responder' population.

Antioxidants for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Between 30% to 80% of male subfertility cases are considered to be due to the damaging effects of oxidative stress on sperm and 1 man in 20 will be affected by subfertility. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments and many men are already using these to improve their fertility. It is thought that oral supplementation with antioxidants may improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative stress. Pentoxifylline, a drug that acts like an antioxidant, was also included in this review.  

OBJECTIVES

This Cochrane review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation with antioxidants for subfertile male partners in couples seeking fertility assistance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED databases (from inception until January 2014); trial registers; sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. An updated search was run in August 2014 when potentially eligible studies were placed in 'Studies awaiting assessment'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type or dose of antioxidant supplement (single or combined) taken by the subfertile male partner of a couple seeking fertility assistance with a placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates, adverse events, sperm DNA fragmentation, sperm motility and concentration. Data were combined, where appropriate, to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE methods.  

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 48 RCTs that compared single and combined antioxidants with placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant in a population of 4179 subfertile men. The duration of the trials ranged from 3 to 26 weeks with follow up ranging from 3 weeks to 2 years. The men were aged from 20 to 52 years. Most of the men enrolled in these trials had low total sperm motility and sperm concentration. One study enrolled men after varicocelectomy, one enrolled men with a varicocoele, and one recruited men with chronic prostatitis. Three trials enrolled men who, as a couple, were undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and one trial enrolled men who were part of a couple undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI). Funding sources were stated by 15 trials. Four of these trials stated that funding was from a commercial source and the remaining 11 obtained funding through non-commercial avenues or university grants. Thirty-three trials did not report any funding sources.A limitation of this review was that in a sense we had included two different groups of trials, those that reported on the use of antioxidants and the effect on live birth and clinical pregnancy, and a second group that reported on sperm parameters as their primary outcome and had no intention of reporting the primary outcomes of this review. We included 25 trials reporting on sperm parameters and only three of these reported on live birth or clinical pregnancy. Other limitations included poor reporting of study methods, imprecision, the small number of trials providing usable data, the small sample size of many of the included studies and the lack of adverse events reporting. The evidence was graded as 'very low' to 'low'. The data were current to 31 January 2014.Live birth: antioxidants may have increased live birth rates (OR 4.21, 95% CI 2.08 to 8.51, P< 0.0001, 4 RCTs, 277 men, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 5%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 10% and 31%. However, this result was based on only 44 live births from a total of 277 couples in four small studies.Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may have increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.92 to 6.11, P < 0.0001, 7 RCTs, 522 men, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 6%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated at between 11% and 28%. However, there were only seven small studies in this analysis and the quality of the evidence was rated as low.Miscarriage: only three trials reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. There was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in miscarriage rates between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment groups (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.60, P = 0.46, 3 RCTs, 247 men, I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile men with an expected miscarriage rate of 2%, use of an antioxidant would result in the risk of a miscarriage lying between 1% and 13%.Gastrointestinal upsets: there was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in gastrointestinal upsets when antioxidants were compared to placebo or no treatment as the event rate was very low (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.50, P = 0.46, 6 RCTs, 429 men, I(2) = 0%).We were unable to draw any conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as not enough trials compared the same interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence from only four small randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low quality evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage but this is uncertain as the evidence is of very low quality. Data were lacking on other adverse effects. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials are needed to clarify these results.

Quality of reporting in infertility journals

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether fertility and top gynecology journals indexed in PubMed require the use of reporting guidelines and to identify the percentage of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2013 that were written following CONSORT guidelines in the top four fertility journals (by their highest impact factor).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study evaluating instructions for authors and RCTs published in fertility journals.

SETTING

Academic institution.

PATIENT(S)

None.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Proportion of instruction-for-authors documents that suggested or required the use of reporting guidelines, and proportion of RCTs published in 2013 that accomplished the CONSORT checklist.

RESULT(S)

In 47% (16/34) of the journals one or more reporting guidelines were mentioned in the instructions for authors' documents. PRISMA and CONSORT were the most commonly mentioned reporting guidelines. None of the analyzed RCTs completed the 25 items of CONSORT guideline. Sequence generation or allocation concealment was not described in 69% of the studies. One-third of the journals did not publish a flowchart, 72% did not show relative and absolute size-effect measures, and 42% did not use measures of imprecision. In the summaries, 42% did not discuss the limitations of the study and 78% did not mention the generalizability of the results.

CONCLUSION(S)

Less than half of the analyzed peer-reviewed journals request the authors to use reporting guidelines. Nevertheless, among the top fertility and gynecology journals, reporting guidelines are widely mentioned. Overall, accomplishment of CONSORT items was suboptimal. Editorial boards, reviewers, and authors should join efforts to improve the quality of reporting.

A retrospective survey of quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials of metformin for polycystic ovary syndrome

Background

From previous reviews, there still have been controversies over the effect of metformin (MET) on reproductive function in PCOS patients. The reasons for the inconsistent findings especially lie in the transparency and accuracy of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reports. However, we could find no data about the quality of RCTs reporting in MET for PCOS. Thus, a retrospective survey related to the quality of reporting in MET for PCOS was conducted.

Methods

A retrospective survey was conducted by two investigators. Two investigators assessed the quality of overall reporting and key methodological factors reporting using items from the CONSORT 2010 statement.

Results

A total of 39 RCTs were included in full text. The median overall quality score was 9, with a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 13. Good or general reporting existed in 11 items with positive rate of more than or equal to 50%. The median score of key methodological items was 4 with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 5. Randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, baseline characteristics and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis were reported in 26 (67%), 19 (49%), 20 (51%), 38 (97%) and 17 (44%) of the 39 RCTs, respectively. After adjustment, the mean overall score increased by about 1.71 for manuscripts with funding source (95% CI, 0.18 to 3.24), while it increased by about 3.51 for manuscripts published in one year increment (95% CI, 1.82 to 5.19). There was a relatively close, significant correlation (r = 0.589, P < 0.001) between the score of overall reporting quality and year of publication.

Conclusion

Although the overall reporting quality of RCTs in MET for PCOS has improved over time, reporting of key methodological items remains poor. Reporting of RCTs on MET for PCOS should keep up with the standards of the CONSORT statement.

Antioxidants for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Between 30% to 80% of male subfertility cases are considered to be due to the damaging effects of oxidative stress on sperm and 1 man in 20 will be affected by subfertility. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments and many men are already using these to improve their fertility. It is thought that oral supplementation with antioxidants may improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative stress. Pentoxifylline, a drug that acts like an antioxidant, was also included in this review.  

OBJECTIVES

This Cochrane review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral supplementation with antioxidants for subfertile male partners in couples seeking fertility assistance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED databases (from inception until January 2014); trial registers; sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. An updated search was run in August 2014 when potentially eligible studies were placed in 'Studies awaiting assessment'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type or dose of antioxidant supplement (single or combined) taken by the subfertile male partner of a couple seeking fertility assistance with a placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates, adverse events, sperm DNA fragmentation, sperm motility and concentration. Data were combined, where appropriate, to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE methods.  

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 48 RCTs that compared single and combined antioxidants with placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant in a population of 4179 subfertile men. The duration of the trials ranged from 3 to 26 weeks with follow up ranging from 3 weeks to 2 years. The men were aged from 20 to 52 years. Most of the men enrolled in these trials had low total sperm motility and sperm concentration. One study enrolled men after varicocelectomy, one enrolled men with a varicocoele, and one recruited men with chronic prostatitis. Three trials enrolled men who, as a couple, were undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and one trial enrolled men who were part of a couple undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI). Funding sources were stated by 15 trials. Four of these trials stated that funding was from a commercial source and the remaining 11 obtained funding through non-commercial avenues or university grants. Thirty-three trials did not report any funding sources.A limitation of this review was that in a sense we had included two different groups of trials, those that reported on the use of antioxidants and the effect on live birth and clinical pregnancy, and a second group that reported on sperm parameters as their primary outcome and had no intention of reporting the primary outcomes of this review. We included 25 trials reporting on sperm parameters and only three of these reported on live birth or clinical pregnancy. Other limitations included poor reporting of study methods, imprecision, the small number of trials providing usable data, the small sample size of many of the included studies and the lack of adverse events reporting. The evidence was graded as 'very low' to 'low'. The data were current to 31 January 2014.Live birth: antioxidants may have increased live birth rates (OR 4.21, 95% CI 2.08 to 8.51, P< 0.0001, 4 RCTs, 277 men, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 5%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 10% and 31%. However, this result was based on only 44 live births from a total of 277 couples in four small studies.Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may have increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.92 to 6.11, P < 0.0001, 7 RCTs, 522 men, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 6%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated at between 11% and 28%. However, there were only seven small studies in this analysis and the quality of the evidence was rated as low.Miscarriage: only three trials reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. There was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in miscarriage rates between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment groups (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.60, P = 0.46, 3 RCTs, 247 men, I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile men with an expected miscarriage rate of 2%, use of an antioxidant would result in the risk of a miscarriage lying between 1% and 13%.Gastrointestinal upsets: there was insufficient evidence to show whether there was a difference in gastrointestinal upsets when antioxidants were compared to placebo or no treatment as the event rate was very low (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.50, P = 0.46, 6 RCTs, 429 men, I(2) = 0%).We were unable to draw any conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as not enough trials compared the same interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence from only four small randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low quality evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage but this is uncertain as the evidence is of very low quality. Data were lacking on other adverse effects. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials are needed to clarify these results.

Antioxidants for female subfertility

BACKGROUND

A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This difficulty with conception may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. The reported prevalence of subfertility has increased significantly over the past twenty years. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may be a result of female problems, including ovulatory disorders, poor egg quality, fallopian tube damage and endometriosis. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from inception to April 2013) with no language restrictions applied: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS and OpenSIGLE. We also searched conference abstracts and citation lists in the ISI Web of Knowledge. Ongoing trials were searched in the Trials Registers. Reference lists were checked, and a search on Google was performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. Trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that exclusively included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently screened 2127 titles and abstracts, and 67 of these potentially eligible trials were appraised for inclusion and quality through review of full texts and contact with authors. Three review authors were involved in data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. Review authors also collected data on adverse events as reported from the trials. Studies were pooled using fixed-effect models; however, if high heterogeneity was found, a random-effects model was used. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the dichotomous outcomes of live birth, clinical pregnancy and adverse events. Analyses were stratified by type of antioxidant, by indications for subfertility and by those women also undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection techniques (ICSIs). The overall quality of the evidence was assessed by applying GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 28 trials involving 3548 women were included in this review. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including combinations of antioxidants, pentoxifylline, N-acetyl-cysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, vitamin E, myo-inositol, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids with placebo, with no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant.Antioxidants were not associated with an increased live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.26, P = 0.82, 2 RCTs, 97 women, I(2) = 75%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 37%, the rate among women taking antioxidants would be between 10% and 83%.Antioxidants were not associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.85, P = 0.14, 13 RCTs, 2441 women, I(2)= 55%, very low-quality evidence). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 23%, the rate among women taking antioxidants would be between 22% and 36%.Only one trial reported on live birth in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, and two trials reported on clinical pregnancy in this comparison. Only subtotals were used in this analysis, and meta-analysis was not possible as each trial used a different antioxidant.Pentoxifylline was associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.44, P = 0.009, 3 RCTs, 276 women, I(2) = 0%).Adverse events were reported by 14 trials in the meta-analysis and included miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy and gastrointestinal effects. No evidence revealed a difference in adverse effects between antioxidant groups and control groups, but these data were limited.The overall quality of evidence was 'very low' to 'low' because of poor reporting of outcomes, the number of small studies included, high risk of bias within studies and heterogeneity in the primary analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence in the 'antioxidant versus placebo/no treatment' and in the 'antioxidant versus antioxidant' comparisons was assessed to be 'very low'. Antioxidants were not associated with an increased live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. There was some evidence of an association of pentoxifylline with an increased clinical pregnancy rate; however, there were only three trials included in this comparison. Future trials may change this result. Variation in the types of antioxidants given meant that we could not assess whether one antioxidant was better than another. There did not appear to be any association of antioxidants with adverse effects for women, but data for these outcomes were limited.

The effects of acupuncture on rates of clinical pregnancy among women undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Recent systematic reviews of adjuvant acupuncture for IVF have pooled heterogeneous trials, without examining variables that might explain the heterogeneity. The aims of our meta-analysis were to quantify the overall pooled effects of adjuvant acupuncture on IVF clinical pregnancy success rates, and evaluate whether study design-, treatment- and population-related factors influence effect estimates. METHODS We included randomized controlled trials that compared needle acupuncture administered within 1 day of embryo transfer, versus sham acupuncture or no adjuvant treatment. Our primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rates. We obtained from all investigators additional methodological details and outcome data not included in their original publications. We analysed sham-controlled and no adjuvant treatment-controlled trials separately, but since there were no large or significant differences between these two subsets, we pooled all trials for subgroup analyses. We prespecified 11 subgroup variables (5 clinical and 6 methodological) to investigate sources of heterogeneity, using single covariate meta-regressions. RESULTS Sixteen trials (4021 participants) were included in the meta-analyses. There was no statistically significant difference between acupuncture and controls when combining all trials [risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-1.31; I(2) = 68%; 16 trials; 4021 participants], or when restricting to sham-controlled (RR 1.02, 0.83-1.26; I(2) = 66%; 7 trials; 2044 participants) or no adjuvant treatment-controlled trials (RR 1.22, 0.97-1.52; I(2) = 67%; 9 trials; 1977 participants). The type of control used did not significantly explain the statistical heterogeneity (interaction P = 0.27). Baseline pregnancy rate, measured as the observed rate of clinical pregnancy in the control group of each trial, was a statistically significant effect modifier (interaction P < 0.001), and this covariate explained most of the heterogeneity of the effects of adjuvant acupuncture across all trials (adjusted R(2) = 93%; I(2) residual = 9%). Trials with lower control group rates of clinical pregnancy showed larger effects of adjuvant acupuncture (RR 1.53, 1.28-1.84; 7 trials; 1732 participants) than trials with higher control group rates of clinical pregnancy (RR 0.90, 0.80-1.01; 9 trials; 2289 participants). The asymmetric funnel plot showed a tendency for the intervention effects to be more beneficial in smaller trials. CONCLUSIONS We found no pooled benefit of adjuvant acupuncture for IVF. The subgroup finding of a benefit in trials with lower, but not higher, baseline pregnancy rates (the only statistically significant subgroup finding in our earlier review) has been confirmed in this update, and was not explained by any confounding variables evaluated. However, this baseline pregnancy rate subgroup finding among published trials requires further confirmation and exploration in additional studies because of the multiple subgroup tests conducted, the risk of unidentified confounders, the multiple different factors that determine baseline rates, and the possibility of publication bias.

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals

BACKGROUND

An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.

OBJECTIVES

To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive.

SELECTION CRITERIA

In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors.   Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. 'Allocation concealment' resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); 'sample size' (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for 'sequence generation' (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, 'total sum score' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influence of the CONSORT Statement dependent on the extent of editorial policies to ensure adherence to CONSORT guidance.

Incomplete and inconsistent reporting of maternal and fetal outcomes in infertility treatment trials

Pregnancy outcomes and adverse outcomes in infertility trials are reported to varying extents; for example, 35% of clinical trials reported no information on pregnancy loss, only 43% reported adverse events during the preconception treatment period, and only 7% reported any serious adverse events. Incomplete reporting limits the value of these studies in counseling patients on the risk-benefit ratio of treatment to themselves and their infants.

Antioxidants for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Between 30% to 80% of male subfertility cases are considered to be due to the damaging effects of oxidative stress on sperm. Oral supplementation with antioxidants may improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative stress.  

OBJECTIVES

This Cochrane review aimed to evaluate the effect of oral supplementation with antioxidants for male partners of couples undergoing assisted reproduction techniques (ART).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED databases (from their inception until Febuary 2010), trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, reference lists and we asked experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing any type or dose of antioxidant supplement (single or combined) taken by the male partner of a couple seeking fertility assistance with placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant. The outcomes were live birth, pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, sperm DNA damage, sperm motility, sperm concentration and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality, and extracted data.  

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 trials with 2876 couples in total. Live birth: three trials reported live birth. Men taking oral antioxidants had an associated statistically significant increase in live birth rate (pooled odds ratio (OR) 4.85, 95% CI 1.92 to 12.24; P = 0.0008, I(2) = 0%) when compared with the men taking the control. This result was based on 20 live births from a total of 214 couples in only three studies.Pregnancy rate: there were 96 pregnancies in 15 trials including 964 couples. Antioxidant use was associated with a statistically significant increased pregnancy rate compared to control (pooled OR 4.18, 95% CI 2.65 to 6.59; P < 0.00001, I(2) = 0%).Side effects: no studies reported evidence of harmful side effects of the antioxidant therapy used.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve the outcomes of live birth and pregnancy rate for subfertile couples undergoing ART cycles. Further head to head comparisons are necessary to identify the superiority of one antioxidant over another.

Individual patient data meta-analysis: a promising approach for evidence synthesis in reproductive medicine

Systematic reviews and accompanying meta-analyses are the cornerstones of evidence-based medicine. Systematic reviews summarize clinical evidence; meta-analyses provide summary estimates of the treatment effect or the diagnostic test accuracy. Although deemed to provide the highest level of evidence, their clinical value is limited as they can only summarize aggregated data. In these meta-analyses the true variability of the treatment effects cannot be explored to the desired extent, because the meta-analyses cannot distinguish between patients with different clinical profiles. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on individual patient data (IPD), described as the 'gold standard' for systematic reviews are a promising approach that might overcome these limitations. IPD meta-analyses allow treatment effects and diagnostic accuracy to be estimated at the level of relevant patient subgroups. This enables researchers to investigate the effectiveness of treatment in patients with different profiles. In this article, we address the opportunities of systematic reviews and meta-analyses using IPD in reproductive medicine. We discuss its potential based on three clinical examples: single versus double embryo transfer in IVF, the diagnosis of tubal pathology and the prognostic value of ovarian reserve tests. We propose to show potential advantages of IPD systematic reviews and meta-analyses in providing stratified clinical evidence, which could improve medical care.

Association between framing of the research question using the PICOT format and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials

Background

Experts recommend formulating a structured research question to guide the research design. However, the basis for this recommendation has not been formally evaluated. The aim of this study was to examine if a structured research question using the PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Time-frame) format is associated with a better reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

We evaluated 89 RCTs reports published in three endocrinology journals in 2005 and 2006, the quality of reporting of which was assessed in a previous study. We examined whether the reports stated each of the five elements of a structured research question: population, intervention, comparator, outcome and time-frame. A PICOT score was created with a possible score between 0 and 5. Outcomes were: 1) a 14-point overall reporting quality score (OQS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials; and 2) a 3-point key score (KS), based on allocation concealment, blinding and use of intention-to-treat analysis. We conducted multivariable regression analyses using generalized estimating equations to determine if a higher PICOT score or the use of a structured research question were independently associated with a better reporting quality. Journal of publication, funding source and sample size were identified as factors associated with OQS in our previous report on this dataset, and therefore included in the model.

Results

A higher PICOT score was independently associated with OQS (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.021, 95% CI: 1.012 to 1.029) and KS (IRR = 1.142, 95% CI: 1.079 to 1.210). A structured research question was present in 33.7% of the reports and it was associated with a better OQS (IRR = 1.095, 95% CI 1.059-1.132) and KS (IRR = 1.530, 95% CI 1.311-1.786).

Conclusions

Better framing of the research question using the PICOT format is independently associated with better overall reporting quality - although the effect is small - and better reporting of key methodologies.

Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation

BACKGROUND

Tubal disease, and particularly hydrosalpinx, has a detrimental effect on the outcome of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Performing a surgical intervention such as salpingectomy, tubal occlusion, aspiration of the hydrosalpinx fluid, or salpingostomy, prior to the IVF procedure in women with hydrosalpinges is thought improve the likelihood of successful outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the value of surgical treatments for tubal disease prior to IVF.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were sought in the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCHMED and in Conference proceedings and reference lists up until Ocober 28 2009. Researchers in the field were contacted to reveal unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All trials comparing a surgical treatment for tubal disease with a control group generated by randomisation were considered for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The studied outcomes were live birth, ongoing pregnancy, viable-, clinical- and biochemical pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ovarian function and complications.

MAIN RESULTS

Five randomised controlled trials involving 646 women were included in this review. Four studies assessed salpingectomy versus no treatment, two of which also included a tubal occlusion arm, and one trial assessed aspiration versus no treatment. No trials reported on the primary outcome: live birth. The odds of ongoing pregnancy (Peto OR 2.14, 95%CI 1.23 to 3.73) and of clinical pregnancy (Peto OR 2.31, 95%CI 1.48 to 3.62) however were increased with laparoscopic salpingectomy for hydrosalpinges prior to IVF. Laparoscopic occlusion of the fallopian tube versus no intervention did not increase the odds of ongoing pregnancy significantly (Peto OR 7.24, 95%CI 0.87 to 59.57) but the odds of clinical pregnancy (Peto OR 4.66, 95%CI 2.47 to 10.01) had sufficient power to show a significant increase. Comparison of tubal occlusion to salpingectomy did not show a significant advantage of either surgical procedure in terms of ongoing pregnancy (Peto OR: 1.65, 95%CI 0.74, 3.71) or clinical pregnancy (Peto OR 1.28, 95%CI 0,76 to 2.14). One RCT reported efficacy of ultrasound guided aspiration, however the odds of pregnancy did not show a significant increase in the odds of clinical pregnancy (Peto OR 1.97, 95%CI 0.62 to 6.29), and confidence intervals were wide. Throughout the different comparisons no significant differences were seen in adverse effects of surgical treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Surgical treatment should be considered for all women with hydrosalpinges prior to IVF treatment. Previous evidence supported only unilateral salpingectomy for a unilateral hydrosalpinx (bilateral salpingectomy for bilateral hydrosalpinges). This review now provides evidence that laparoscopic tubal occlusion is an alternative to laparoscopic salpingectomy in improving IVF pregnancy rates in women with hydrosalpinges. Further research is required to assess the value of aspiration of hydrosalpinges prior to or during IVF procedures and also the value of tubal restorative surgery as an alternative (or as a preliminary) to IVF.

Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in polycystic ovary syndrome

Background

Inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. The reporting quality of RCTs involving patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the reporting quality of RCTs involving patients with PCOS using a standardized tool based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.

Methods

We searched PubMed database for English-language RCTs involving patients with PCOS. Quality of reporting was assessed using a 24-item questionnaire based on the revised CONSORT checklist. Reporting was evaluated overall, and for pre- and post-CONSORT periods. RCTs on PCOS associated with fertility and non-fertility disturbances were also evaluated separately.

Results

Nine of the 24 items were reported in less than 50% of the studies, while a significant improvement (P < 0.05) was detected in 12 of 24 items (50%) over the two CONSORT periods. The RCTs on PCOS with reference to fertility seem to have adhered better to CONSORT statement than RCTs not associated to fertility.

Conclusion

There is empirical evidence of suboptimal reporting quality of RCTs in PCOS. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement may optimize the reporting quality and enhance the validity of research.

Intra-uterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non-tubal infertility

BACKGROUND

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) combined with intrauterine insemination (IUI) is commonly offered to couples with subfertility that does not involve the fallopian tubes. Another method is fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP). This technique ensures the presence of higher sperm densities in the fallopian tubes at the time of ovulation than does standard IUI. The aim of this review was to determine whether FSP and IUI differ in improving the probability of conception.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether pregnancy and live birth outcomes differ between fallopian tube sperm perfusion and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (October 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2008), and EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2008). Abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1987 to 2008) and European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (1987 to 2008) meetings were searched using the same key or text words.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only truly randomised controlled studies comparing FSP with IUI were included in this review. Couples with non-tubal subfertility who have been trying to conceive for at least one year were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials for inclusion based on the quality of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies involving 595 couples were included in the meta-analysis. Only one study reported the live birth rate and there was no evidence of a difference between FSP and IUI (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.5). There was no evidence of a difference between FSP and IUI for clinical pregnancy per couple (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.7). A subgroup analysis which included couples with unexplained subfertility only (n = 239) did not report any difference between FSP and IUI (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.8).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For non-tubal subfertility, the results indicate no clear benefit for FSP over IUI. Therefore the advice offered to subfertile couples regarding the comparative use of FSP versus IUI in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility should reflect this.

Bias in frequently reported analyses of subfertility trials

Randomized controlled trials in subfertility are often designed so that participants in each trial arm are offered the randomized treatment for up to k cycles, until success occurs. In clinical journals, success probabilities are often reported 'per cycle' and inferential procedures carried out as if all cycles were independent. However, this assumption does not hold. In this paper we consider the implications of such an assumption when we have a heterogeneous (Beta) patient population. We conducted a simulation study to assess the bias of estimates of the risk difference, risk ratio and odds ratio calculated using the total number of randomized women or the total number of treatment cycles as the unit of analysis, as well as the coverage of their confidence intervals (CIs). We found that the commonly reported 'per cycle' analyses are more biased and have poorer coverage of the CIs than the analyses based on the total number of women, in heterogeneous populations. Such information will help researchers who wish to interpret publications when the number of randomized participants is not extractable.

A systematic review of trends in the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in various research fields

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the trends in the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in various medical fields.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Relevant studies were retrieved by the PubMed and the ISI Web of science databases.

RESULTS

Thirty-five out of 457 retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one out of 35 selected studies reported significant improvement in at least one methodological quality factor. Overall quality scores were increased in 13 out of 26 studies providing relevant data. The most commonly separately examined key quality factors were allocation concealment and blinding in 13 out of 21 studies that reported relevant data. Allocation concealment was the quality characteristic most commonly reported as significantly improving during the reviewed period (in five out of eight studies reporting relevant comparative data).

CONCLUSION

Certain aspects of methodological quality have improved significantly over time, but others remain stagnant. Further efforts to improve study design, conduct, and reporting of randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general endocrinology literature

CONTEXT

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is poor in general medicine and several areas of specialization but unknown in endocrinology.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of RCTs in general endocrinology. A secondary objective was to identify predictors for better reporting quality.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically reviewed RCTs published in three general endocrinology journals between January 2005 and December 2006.

PARTICIPANTS

We included parallel-design RCTs that addressed a question of treatment or prevention. Article selection and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently, and disagreements were resolved by consensus.

MAIN OUTCOMES

There were two main outcomes: 1) a 15-point overall reporting quality score (OQS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT); and 2) a 3-point key score, based on allocation concealment, blinding, and use of intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty nine RCTs were included. The median OQS was 10 (interquartile range = 2). Allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis by intention to treat were reported in 10, 20, and 16 of the 89 RCTs, respectively. A multivariable regression analysis showed that complete industrial funding [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.014; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.010-1.018], journal of publication (IRR = 1.068; 95% CI, 1.007-1.132), and sample size (IRR = 1.048; 95% CI, 1.026-1.070) were significantly associated with a slightly better OQS.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of RCT reporting in general endocrine literature is suboptimal. We discuss our results, highlight the areas where improvements are needed, and provide some recommendations.

Randomised trials relevant to mental health conducted in low and middle-income countries: a survey

BACKGROUND

A substantial proportion of the psychiatric burden of disease falls on the world's poorest nations, yet relatively little is known about randomised trials conducted in these countries. Our aim was to identify and describe a representative sample of mental health trials from low and middle-income countries.

METHODS

6107 electronic records, most with full text copies, were available following extensive searches for randomised or potentially randomised trials from low and middle-income countries published in 1991, 1995 and 2000. These records were searched to identify studies relevant to mental health. Data on study characteristics were extracted from the full text copies.

RESULTS

Trials relevant to mental health were reported in only 3% of the records. 176 records reporting 177 trials were identified: 25 were published in 1991, 45 in 1995, and 106 in 2000. Participants from China were represented in 46% of trials described. 68% of trials had <100 participants. The method of sequence generation was described in less than 20% of reports and adequate concealment of allocation was described in only 12% of reports. Participants were most frequently adults with unipolar depression (36/177) or schizophrenia (36/177). 80% of studies evaluated pharmacological interventions, a third of which were not listed by WHO as essential drugs. 41% of reports were indexed on PubMed; this proportion decreased from 68% in 1991 to 32% in 2000.

CONCLUSION

In terms of overall health burden, trial research activity from low and middle-income countries in mental health appears to be low, and in no area adequately reflects need.

Intra-uterine insemination for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. Its use, especially when combined with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) has been subject of discussion. Although the treatment itself is less invasive and expensive than others, its efficacy has not been proven. Furthermore, the adverse effects of OH such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS ) and multiple pregnancy are a concern.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to determine whether for couples with male subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rates or ongoing pregnancy rates compared with timed intercourse (TI), with or without OH.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual and Disorders Subfertility Group Trials Special Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library, 2006, issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2006), EMBASE (1980 to May 2006), SCIsearch and the reference lists of articles. We hand searched abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. Authors of identified articles were contacted for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) with at least one of the following comparisons were included: 1) IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycles 2) IUI versus TI both in cycles with OH 3) IUI in natural cycles versus TI + OH 4) IUI + OH versus TI in natural cycles 5) IUI in natural cycles versus IUI + OH. Couples with abnormal sperm parameters only were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two co-reviewers independently performed quality assessment and data extraction. Where possible data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was performed. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were carried out where possible and appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials of parallel design, and five trials of cross-over design with pre-cross-over data were included in the meta-analysis. Three compared IUI with TI both in stimulated cycles. The remaining four of these studies compared IUI versus IUI + OH . Three studies reported on our main outcome of interest live birth rate per couple. For the comparison IUI versus TI both in natural cycles no evidence of difference between the probabilities of pregnancy rates per woman after IUI compared with TI was found (Peto OR 5.3, 95% CI 0.42 to 67). No statistically significant of difference between pregnancy rates (PR) per couple for IUI + OH versus IUI could be found (Peto OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.37). For the comparison IUI versus TI both in stimulated cycles there was no evidence of statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates per couple either (Peto OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.37). There were insufficient data available for adverse outcomes such as OHSS, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage rate and ectopic pregnancy to perform a statistical analysis. For the other two comparisons no RCT's were found which reported pregnancy rates per couple. A further 10 studies which included one of the comparisons of interests were found. Since these studies reported pregnancy rates per cycle only these data could not be included in the meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence of effectiveness to recommend or advise against IUI with or without OH above TI, or vice versa. Large, high quality randomised controlled trials, comparing IUI with or without OH with pregnancy rate per couple as the main outcome of interest are lacking. There is a need for such trials since firm conclusions cannot be drawn yet.

Intra-uterine insemination for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. Its use, especially when combined with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) has been subject of discussion. Although the treatment itself is less invasive and expensive than others, its efficacy has not been proven. Furthermore, the adverse effects of OH such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS ) and multiple pregnancy are a concern.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to determine whether for couples with male subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rates or ongoing pregnancy rates compared with timed intercourse (TI), with or without OH.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual and Disorders Subfertility Group Trials Special Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library, 2006, issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2006), EMBASE (1980 to May 2006), SCIsearch and the reference lists of articles. We hand searched abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. Authors of identified articles were contacted for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) with at least one of the following comparisons were included: 1) IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycles 2) IUI versus TI both in cycles with OH 3) IUI in natural cycles versus TI + OH 4) IUI + OH versus TI in natural cycles 5) IUI in natural cycles versus IUI + OH Couples with abnormal sperm parameters only were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two co-reviewers independently performed quality assessment and data extraction. Where possible data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was performed. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were carried out where possible and appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials of parallel design, and five trials of cross-over design with pre-cross-over data were included in the meta-analysis. Three compared IUI with TI both in stimulated cycles. The remaining four of these studies compared IUI versus IUI + OH . Three studies reported on our main outcome of interest live birth rate per couple. For the comparison IUI versus TI both in natural cycles no evidence of difference between the probabilities of pregnancy rates per woman after IUI compared with TI was found (Peto OR 5.3, 95% CI 0.42 to 67). No statistically significant of difference between pregnancy rates (PR) per couple for IUI + OH versus IUI could be found (Peto OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.37). For the comparison IUI versus TI both in stimulated cycles there was no evidence of statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates per couple either (Peto OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.37). There were insufficient data available for adverse outcomes such as OHSS, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage rate and ectopic pregnancy to perform a statistical analysis. For the other two comparisons no RCT's were found which reported pregnancy rates per couple. A further 10 studies which included one of the comparisons of interests were found. Since these studies reported pregnancy rates per cycle only these data could not be included in the meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence of effectiveness to recommend or advise against IUI with or without OH above TI, or vice versa. Large, high quality randomised controlled trials, comparing IUI with or without OH with pregnancy rate per couple as the main outcome of interest are lacking. There is a need for such trials since firm conclusions cannot be drawn yet.