1
|
Kan-Tor Y, Srebnik N, Gavish M, Shalit U, Buxboim A. Evaluating the heterogeneous effect of extended culture to blastocyst transfer on the implantation outcome via causal inference in fresh ICSI cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2024; 41:703-715. [PMID: 38321264 PMCID: PMC10957840 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03023-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2023] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 02/08/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE In IVF treatments, extended culture to single blastocyst transfer is the recommended protocol over cleavage-stage transfer. However, evidence-based criteria for assessing the heterogeneous implications on implantation outcomes are lacking. The purpose of this work is to estimate the causal effect of blastocyst transfer on implantation outcome. METHODS We fit a causal forest model using a multicenter observational dataset that includes an exogenous source of variability in treatment assignment and has a strong claim for satisfying the assumptions needed for valid causal inference from observational data. RESULTS We quantified the probability difference in embryo implantation if transferred as a blastocyst versus cleavage stage. Blastocyst transfer increased the average implantation rate; however, we revealed a subpopulation of embryos whose implantation potential is predicted to increase via cleavage-stage transfer. CONCLUSION Relative to the current policy, the proposed embryo transfer policy retrospectively improves implantation rate from 0.2 to 0.27. Our work demonstrates the efficacy of implementing causal inference in reproductive medicine and motivates its utilization in medical disciplines that are dominated by retrospective datasets.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yoav Kan-Tor
- Rachel and Selim Benin School for Computer Science and Engineering, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Edmond J. Safra Campus Givat Ram, 9190401, Jerusalem, Israel
- The Center for Interdisciplinary Data Science Research, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, 9190401, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Naama Srebnik
- Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, 9190401, Jerusalem, Israel
- Hebrew University School of Medicine, In Vitro Fertilization Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, 9103102, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Matan Gavish
- Rachel and Selim Benin School for Computer Science and Engineering, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Edmond J. Safra Campus Givat Ram, 9190401, Jerusalem, Israel
- The Center for Interdisciplinary Data Science Research, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, 9190401, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Uri Shalit
- Data and Decision Sciences, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, 3200003, Haifa, Israel
| | - Amnon Buxboim
- Rachel and Selim Benin School for Computer Science and Engineering, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Edmond J. Safra Campus Givat Ram, 9190401, Jerusalem, Israel.
- The Center for Interdisciplinary Data Science Research, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, 9190401, Jerusalem, Israel.
- Alexander Grass Center for Bioengineering, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, 9190401, Jerusalem, Israel.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gallagher S, Kerridge I, Newson A, Attinger S, Norman RJ, Lipworth W. Moral justification for the use of 'add-ons' in assisted reproductive technology: experts' views and experiences. Reprod Biomed Online 2024; 48:103637. [PMID: 38185024 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.103637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2023] [Revised: 10/12/2023] [Accepted: 10/17/2023] [Indexed: 01/09/2024]
Abstract
RESEARCH QUESTION What factors do assisted reproductive terchnology (ART) providers take into account when they make decisions about offering 'add-ons'? DESIGN A qualitative analysis of interviews with 31 ART professionals, focusing on their views and experiences in relation to add-ons, including the factors that are considered when doctors make decisions about their use. RESULTS The participants reported that a range of considerations are taken into account when it comes to justifying the use of a particular add-on in a given circumstance, including the likelihood of benefit and harm, patients' perceived psychological needs and preferences, and organizational expectations. Importantly, patient preferences, psychological factors and low risk of harm appear to be stronger motivations than increasing the likelihood of a live birth or the desire to innovate. CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that it cannot be taken for granted that add-ons and innovation are closely linked. One possible response to this would be regulatory reform; for example, only allowing 'unproven' add-ons to be used in the context of formal scientific evaluation. Alternatively, it could be made clear that add-ons that are not undergoing formal evaluation have more in common with other therapies lacking a clear evidence base, such as complementary and alternative medicines, than with conventional medical practice. Practices in relation to add-ons may also require a focus on the responsibilities of corporations, and the standards applying to purveyors of consumer goods and services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siun Gallagher
- The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Ian Kerridge
- The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Royal North Shore Hospital, Haematology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia
| | - Ainsley Newson
- The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Sara Attinger
- The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Robert J Norman
- The Robinson Research Institute, School of Biomedicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Wendy Lipworth
- Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wessel JA, Hunt S, van Wely M, Mol F, Wang R. Alternatives to in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2023; 120:483-493. [PMID: 36642301 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.01.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2022] [Revised: 12/07/2022] [Accepted: 01/09/2023] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
There have been concerns on the potential overuse of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in view of the lack of evidence on effectiveness in certain populations, potential short and long-term safety risks, and economic considerations. On the other hand, the use of alternatives to IVF seems to be underappreciated in clinical practice as well as research. In this review, we summarized the up-to-date evidence on the effectiveness, safety as well as cost-effectiveness of different alternatives to IVF, including expectant management, intrauterine insemination, tubal flushing, in vitro maturation as well as intravaginal culture. We also discussed the trend of IVF use over the last decade and the available tiers of service because of intravaginal culture, and revisited the roles of different alternatives to IVF in modern reproductive medicine from both clinical and research perspectives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer A Wessel
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development research institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sarah Hunt
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Madelon van Wely
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development research institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Femke Mol
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Reproduction and Development research institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Rui Wang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Chae-Kim J, Patounakis G, Hill MJ. How to deal with confounders in an infertility study? Fertil Steril 2023; 119:897-901. [PMID: 36948443 PMCID: PMC10483279 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.03.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2023] [Accepted: 03/15/2023] [Indexed: 03/24/2023]
Abstract
Confounding variables represent one of the most important considerations for researchers and readers of scientific clinical papers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Chae-Kim
- Program in Reproductive Endocrinology and Gynecology, National Institutes of Health, NICHD, Bethesda, Maryland; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
| | | | - Micah J Hill
- Program in Reproductive Endocrinology and Gynecology, National Institutes of Health, NICHD, Bethesda, Maryland; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Griesinger G, Larsson P. Conventional outcome reporting per IVF cycle/embryo transfer may systematically underestimate chances of success for women undergoing ART: relevant biases in registries, epidemiological studies, and guidelines. Hum Reprod Open 2023; 2023:hoad018. [PMID: 37250429 PMCID: PMC10214861 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoad018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/17/2023] [Revised: 03/14/2023] [Indexed: 05/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Pre-conception counselling and management of expectations about chance of success of IVF/ICSI treatments is an integral part of fertility care. Registry data are usually used to inform patients about expected success rates of IVF/ICSI treatment, as these data should best represent real-world populations and clinical practice. In registries, the success rate of IVF/ICSI treatments is conventionally reported per treatment cycle or per embryo transfer and estimated from data for which several treatment attempts per subject have been pooled (e.g. repetitive IVF/ICSI attempts or repetitive attempts of cryotransfer). This, however, may underestimate the true mean chance of success per treatment attempt, because treatment attempts of women with a poor prognosis will usually be over-represented in a pool of treatment cycle data compared to treatment events of women with a good prognosis. Of note, this phenomenon is also a source of potential bias when comparing outcomes between fresh transfers and cryotransfers, since women can undergo a maximum of only one fresh transfer after each IVF/ICSI treatment, but potentially several cryotransfers. Herein, we use a trial dataset from 619 women, who underwent one cycle of ovarian stimulation and ICSI, a Day 5 fresh transfer and/or subsequent cryotransfers (follow-up of all cryotransfers up to 1 year after the start of stimulation), to exemplify the underestimation of the live birth rate, when not accounting for repeated transfers in the same woman. Using mixed-effect logistic regression modelling, we show that the mean live birth rate per transfer per woman in cryocycles is underestimated by the factor 0.69 (e.g. live birth rate per cryotransfer of 36% after adjustment versus 25% unadjusted). We conclude that the average chance of success of treatment cycles of women of a given age, treated in a given centre, etc., when conventionally calculated per cycle or per embryo transfer from a pool of treatment events, do not apply to an individual woman. We suggest that patients are, especially at the outset of treatment, systematically confronted with mean estimates of success per attempt that are too low. Live birth rates per transfer from datasets encompassing multiple transfers from single individuals could be more accurately reported using statistical models accounting for the correlation between cycle outcomes within women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Georg Griesinger
- Correspondence address. University of Luebeck and University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538 Luebeck. Germany. Tel: +49-451-505-778-212; Fax: +49-451-505-778-210; E-mail: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0606-5804
| | - Per Larsson
- Global Biometrics, Global Clinical Development, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Kastrup, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Raja EA, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A, McLernon DJ. Comparison of perinatal outcomes after frozen or fresh embryo transfer: separate analyses of singleton, twin, and sibling live births from a linked national in vitro fertilization registry. Fertil Steril 2022; 118:323-334. [PMID: 35717287 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.05.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2021] [Revised: 05/04/2022] [Accepted: 05/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine whether perinatal outcomes following frozen vs. fresh embryo transfer (ET) differ within singletons, within sets of twins, and between siblings. DESIGN Population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING Academic Medical School PATIENT(S): 200,075 live births in 151,561 women who underwent in vitro fertilization with frozen or fresh ET between 1992 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Gestational age at birth, birthweight, congenital anomaly, and healthy baby (≥37 weeks of gestation, birthweight 2,500-4,000 g, no congenital malformations). RESULT(S) There were 200,075 live births in 151,561 women including 132,679 singletons, 33,698 sets of twins, and 5,723 pairs of singleton siblings. In singletons, frozen ET was associated with a lower risk of very preterm birth (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73, 0.94), preterm birth (aRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88, 0.97), low birthweight (<2,500 g) (aRR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.68, 0.77), small for gestational age (aRR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62, 0.70) and congenital anomaly (aRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78, 0.94), but higher risk of high birthweight (>4,000 g) (aRR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.58, 1.72) and large for gestational age (aRR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.55, 1.70) in comparison with fresh ET. In twins, frozen ET was associated with lower risk of very preterm birth (aRR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73, 0.97), and low birthweight (aRR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.68, 0.77), but with a higher chance of a healthy baby (aRR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06, 1.16) compared to fresh ET. Singletons conceived following frozen ET had a lower risk of low birthweight (aRR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44, 0.74) and being small for gestational age (aRR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42, 0.68) than a singleton sibling born after a fresh ET. Frozen ET also was associated with higher risk of high birthweight (aRR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.54, 2.24) and being large for gestational age (aRR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.50, 2.20), and also were less likely to be preterm (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67, 0.99). CONCLUSION(S) Our key finding is that singletons born following a frozen ET are less likely to be small for gestational age than a singleton sibling born following fresh ET but are more likely to be large for gestational age.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edwin-Amalraj Raja
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, Polwarth Building, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
| | - Siladitya Bhattacharya
- School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - Abha Maheshwari
- Aberdeen Fertility Centre, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| | - David J McLernon
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Wilkinson J, Showell M, Taxiarchi VP, Lensen S. Are we leaving money on the table in infertility RCTs? Trialists should statistically adjust for prespecified, prognostic covariates to increase power. Hum Reprod 2022; 37:895-901. [PMID: 35199145 PMCID: PMC9071217 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2021] [Revised: 11/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Infertility randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often too small to detect realistic treatment effects. Large observational studies have been proposed as a solution. However, this strategy threatens to weaken the evidence base further, because non-random assignment to treatments makes it impossible to distinguish effects of treatment from confounding factors. Alternative solutions are required. Power in an RCT can be increased by adjusting for prespecified, prognostic covariates when performing statistical analysis, and if stratified randomization or minimization has been used, it is essential to adjust in order to get the correct answer. We present data showing that this simple, free and frequently necessary strategy for increasing power is seldom employed, even in trials appearing in leading journals. We use this article to motivate a pedagogical discussion and provide a worked example. While covariate adjustment cannot solve the problem of underpowered trials outright, there is an imperative to use sound methodology to maximize the information each trial yields.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Wilkinson
- Centre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - M Showell
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility, The University of Auckland, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - V P Taxiarchi
- Centre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - S Lensen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women’s Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Early Discontinuation, Results Reporting, and Publication of Gynecology Clinical Trials From 2007 to 2020. Obstet Gynecol 2022; 139:821-831. [DOI: 10.1097/aog.0000000000004735] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2021] [Accepted: 01/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
9
|
Passion, Pressure and Pragmatism: How Fertility Clinic Medical Directors View IVF add-ons. Reprod Biomed Online 2022; 45:169-179. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.02.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2021] [Revised: 02/18/2022] [Accepted: 02/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
10
|
Wilkinson J, Stocking K. Study design flaws and statistical challenges in evaluating fertility treatments. REPRODUCTION AND FERTILITY 2022; 2:C9-C21. [PMID: 35128452 PMCID: PMC8812412 DOI: 10.1530/raf-21-0015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2021] [Accepted: 05/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Health interventions should be tested before being introduced into clinical practice, to find out whether they work and whether they are harmful. However, research studies will only provide reliable answers to these questions if they are appropriately designed and analysed. But these are not trivial tasks. We review some methodological challenges that arise when evaluating fertility interventions and explain the implications for a non-statistical audience. These include flexibility in outcomes and analyses; use of surrogate outcomes instead of live birth; use of inappropriate denominators; evaluating cumulative outcomes and time to live birth; allowing each patient or couple to contribute to a research study more than once. We highlight recurring errors and present solutions. We conclude by highlighting the importance of collaboration between clinical and methodological experts, as well as people with experience of subfertility, for realising high-quality research. Lay summary We do research to find out whether fertility treatments are beneficial and to make sure they don't cause harm. However, research will only provide reliable answers if it is done properly. It is not unusual for researchers to make mistakes when they are designing research studies and analysing the data that we get from them. In this review, we describe some of the mistakes people make when they do research about fertility treatments and explain how to avoid them. These include challenges which arise due to the large number of things that can be measured and reported when looking to see if fertility treatments work; failure to check whether the treatment increases the number of live births; failing to include all study participants in calculations;challenges in studies where participants may have more than one treatment attempt. We conclude by highlighting the importance of collaboration between clinical and methodological experts, as well as people with experience of fertility problems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jack Wilkinson
- Centre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Katie Stocking
- Centre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Perrotta M, Geampana A. Enacting evidence-based medicine in fertility care: Tensions between commercialisation and knowledge standardisation. SOCIOLOGY OF HEALTH & ILLNESS 2021; 43:2015-2030. [PMID: 34564881 DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.13381] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2021] [Revised: 07/21/2021] [Accepted: 08/31/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
In this article we explore the recent enactment of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the field of fertility care. We aim to contribute to the medical sociology literature through an analysis of how evidence is produced, interpreted and institutionalised in a relatively new medical field such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF), characterised by high uncertainty due to limited knowledge and high levels of commercialisation. Drawing on extensive ethnographic research conducted in England, this article explores the challenges IVF professionals encounter in producing credible data on the effectiveness of additional treatments, offering novel insights on the tensions between commercialisation and standardisation in the enactment of EBM. Extant medical sociology and Science and Technology Studies literature has shown the hidden professional work required to enact randomised control trials in practice. Our analysis shows that this hidden work is not enough when there is a broader lack of standardisation in both clinical and research practices, as producing 'good quality' evidence requires high levels of standardisation of knowledge production.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manuela Perrotta
- Department of People and Organisations, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Alina Geampana
- Department of Sociology and Policy, Aston University, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hirsch M, Tariq L, Duffy JM. Effect of Local Anesthetics on Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Gynecologic Laparoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2021; 28:1689-1698. [PMID: 33991671 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2021.04.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2021] [Revised: 04/29/2021] [Accepted: 04/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Pain remains a common complication after gynecologic laparoscopy. Use of local anesthesia may be beneficial in reducing postoperative pain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether local anesthetic decreases postoperative pain after laparoscopic gynecologic procedures. DATA SOURCES We searched Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and Medline from inception to November 2020 using Medical Subject Headings and free text combinations. METHODS OF TRIAL SELECTION We included randomized controlled trials of patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy receiving port site subcutaneous, subfascial, or intraperitoneal local anesthetic compared with placebo or no intervention. We included 20 trials (1861 participants) with size varying between 28 and 164 participants. TABULATIONS, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom), with standard mean differences (SMDs) and random-effects model. Port site infiltration reduces postoperative pain at 4 hours (SMD -0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.44 to -0.06; 4 trials; 545 participants) and 6 hours (SMD -0.44; 95% CI, -0.82 to -0.06; 4 trials; 455 participants) after surgery. The administration of intraperitoneal local anesthetics reduces pain at 6 hours (-1.42; 95% CI, -3.22 to -0.30; 4 trials; 277 participants) after surgery. CONCLUSIONS The use of port site and intraperitoneal local anesthetic decreases immediate postoperative pain in patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy, although its impact on analgesia requirements is unclear. Routine usage of local anesthetics should be considered for people undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martin Hirsch
- EGA Institute for Women's Health (Dr. Hirsch), University College London; Oxford University Hospitals (Dr. Hirsch), Headley way, Oxford, United Kingdom.
| | - Laiba Tariq
- University College London Medical School (Ms. Tariq)
| | - James Mn Duffy
- King's Fertility (Dr. Duffy), Fetal Medicine Research Institute
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Duffy JMN, Bhattacharya S, Bhattacharya S, Bofill M, Collura B, Curtis C, Evers JLH, Giudice LC, Farquharson RG, Franik S, Hickey M, Hull ML, Jordan V, Khalaf Y, Legro RS, Lensen S, Mavrelos D, Mol BW, Niederberger C, Ng EHY, Puscasiu L, Repping S, Sarris I, Showell M, Strandell A, Vail A, van Wely M, Vercoe M, Vuong NL, Wang AY, Wang R, Wilkinson J, Youssef MA, Farquhar CM. Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study† ‡. Hum Reprod 2021; 35:2735-2745. [PMID: 33252643 PMCID: PMC7744157 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa243] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2020] [Revised: 07/08/2020] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J M N Duffy
- King's Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK.,Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - S Bhattacharya
- School of Medicine, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, UK
| | - S Bhattacharya
- School of Medicine, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, UK
| | - M Bofill
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - B Collura
- RESOLVE, The National Infertility Association, VA, USA
| | - C Curtis
- Fertility New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand.,School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
| | - J L H Evers
- Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - L C Giudice
- Center for Research, Innovation and Training in Reproduction and Infertility, Center for Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.,International Federation of Fertility Societies, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - R G Farquharson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - S Franik
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Münster University Hospital, Münster, Germany
| | - M Hickey
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - M L Hull
- Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - V Jordan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Y Khalaf
- Department of Women and Children's Health, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London
| | - R S Legro
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Penn State College of Medicine, PA, USA
| | - S Lensen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - D Mavrelos
- Reproductive Medicine Unit, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - B W Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - C Niederberger
- Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - E H Y Ng
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.,Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Fertility Regulation, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, China
| | - L Puscasiu
- Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology, University of Medicine, Targu Mures, Romania
| | - S Repping
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,National Health Care Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands
| | - I Sarris
- King's Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK
| | - M Showell
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - A Strandell
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - A Vail
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - M van Wely
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Vercoe
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - N L Vuong
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
| | - A Y Wang
- Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, Broadway, Australia
| | - R Wang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - J Wilkinson
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - M A Youssef
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - C M Farquhar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.,Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Duffy JMN, AlAhwany H, Bhattacharya S, Collura B, Curtis C, Evers JLH, Farquharson RG, Franik S, Giudice LC, Khalaf Y, Knijnenburg JML, Leeners B, Legro RS, Lensen S, Vazquez-Niebla JC, Mavrelos D, Mol BWJ, Niederberger C, Ng EHY, Otter AS, Puscasiu L, Rautakallio-Hokkanen S, Repping S, Sarris I, Simpson JL, Strandell A, Strawbridge C, Torrance HL, Vail A, van Wely M, Vercoe MA, Vuong NL, Wang AY, Wang R, Wilkinson J, Youssef MA, Farquhar CM. Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡. Hum Reprod 2021; 35:2725-2734. [PMID: 33252685 PMCID: PMC7744160 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2020] [Revised: 07/08/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J M N Duffy
- King's Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK.,Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - H AlAhwany
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK
| | - S Bhattacharya
- School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, UK
| | - B Collura
- RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, VA, USA
| | - C Curtis
- Fertility New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand.,School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
| | - J L H Evers
- Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - R G Farquharson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - S Franik
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Münster University Hospital, Münster, Germany
| | - L C Giudice
- Center for Research, Innovation and Training in Reproduction and Infertility, Center for Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.,International Federation of Fertility Societies, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Y Khalaf
- Department of Women and Children's Health, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
| | | | - B Leeners
- Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - R S Legro
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Penn State College of Medicine, PA, USA
| | - S Lensen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - J C Vazquez-Niebla
- Cochrane Iberoamerica, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
| | - D Mavrelos
- Reproductive Medicine Unit, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - B W J Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - C Niederberger
- Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - E H Y Ng
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.,Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Fertility Regulation, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, China
| | - A S Otter
- Osakidetza OSI, Bilbao, Basurto, Spain
| | - L Puscasiu
- University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology, Targu Mures, Romania
| | | | - S Repping
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - I Sarris
- King's Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK
| | - J L Simpson
- Department of Human and Molecular Genetics, Florida International University, FL, USA
| | - A Strandell
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden
| | | | - H L Torrance
- Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - A Vail
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - M van Wely
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A Vercoe
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - N L Vuong
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
| | - A Y Wang
- Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, Broadway, Australia
| | - R Wang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - J Wilkinson
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - M A Youssef
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - C M Farquhar
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Chua SJ, Mol BW, Longobardi S, Orvieto R, Venetis CA, Lispi M, Storr A, D'Hooghe T. Biosimilar recombinant follitropin alfa preparations versus the reference product (Gonal-F®) in couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2021; 19:51. [PMID: 33794909 PMCID: PMC8017804 DOI: 10.1186/s12958-021-00727-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2020] [Accepted: 03/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Live birth has increasingly been identified as the standard clinical approach to measure the success of medically assisted reproduction (MAR). However, previous analyses comparing biosimilar preparations of follitropin alfa versus the reference product (GONAL-f®, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany or GONAL-f® RFF; EMD Serono, Inc., Rockland, MA), have had insufficient power to detect differences in clinically meaningful outcomes such as live birth. METHODS Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and clinical trial registries were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and conference abstracts comparing biosimilar follitropin alfa versus the reference product in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycles published before 31 October 2020. Only studies in humans and publications in English were included. Retrieved studies were screened independently by two authors based on titles and abstracts, and then by full text. INCLUSION CRITERIA RCTs comparing follitropin alfa biosimilar preparations with the reference product in infertile patients of any age, with any type of infertility for any duration, undergoing COS for the purposes of MAR treatment (including frozen cycles). The primary outcome was live birth. Combined data for biosimilar preparations were analysed using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS From 292 unique records identified, 17 studies were included in the systematic review, representing five unique RCTs that were included in the meta-analysis. Rates of live birth (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.71, 0.97; 4 RCTs, n = 1881, I2 = 0%), clinical pregnancy (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.72, 0.94; 4 RCTs, n = 2222, I2 = 0%) and ongoing pregnancy (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68, 0.96; 4 RCTs, n = 1232, I2 = 0%) were significantly lower with biosimilar preparations versus the reference product. Rates of cumulative live birth and cumulative clinical pregnancy were also significantly lower with biosimilars versus the reference product. There was high risk of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis included data from RCTs evaluating the efficacy and safety of the biosimilar follitropin alfa preparations and demonstrated lower probability of live birth and pregnancy (ongoing and clinical) in couples treated with biosimilar preparations compared with the reference product. This study provides more insight into the differences between biosimilar r-hFSH preparations and the reference product than previously reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION Registration number: CRD42019121992 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Su Jen Chua
- Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.
| | - Ben W Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Monash, Monash, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia
| | - Salvatore Longobardi
- Global Clinical Development, Merck Serono S.p.A (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt 64293, Germany), 00176, Rome, Italy
| | - Raoul Orvieto
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Ramat Gan, 52621, Israel
- The Tarnesby-Tarnowski Chair for Family Planning and Fertility Regulation, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv-Yafo, 6997801, Israel
| | - Christos A Venetis
- School of Women's and Children's Health & Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales, Clayton, Victoria, 2052, Australia
- IVF Australia, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia
| | - Monica Lispi
- University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, MO, 41121, Italy
- Global Medical Affairs Fertility, Research and Development, Merck KGaA, F135/002, Darmstadt, 64293, Germany
| | - Ashleigh Storr
- Flinders Fertility, Adelaide, South Australia, 5045, Australia
- College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, 5042, Australia
| | - Thomas D'Hooghe
- Global Medical Affairs Fertility, Research and Development, Merck KGaA, F135/002, Darmstadt, 64293, Germany
- Research Group Reproductive Medicine, Department of Development and Regeneration, Organ Systems, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Leuven, 3000, Belgium
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Duffy JMN, Adamson GD, Benson E, Bhattacharya S, Bhattacharya S, Bofill M, Brian K, Collura B, Curtis C, Evers JLH, Farquharson RG, Fincham A, Franik S, Giudice LC, Glanville E, Hickey M, Horne AW, Hull ML, Johnson NP, Jordan V, Khalaf Y, Knijnenburg JML, Legro RS, Lensen S, MacKenzie J, Mavrelos D, Mol BW, Morbeck DE, Nagels H, Ng EHY, Niederberger C, Otter AS, Puscasiu L, Rautakallio-Hokkanen S, Sadler L, Sarris I, Showell M, Stewart J, Strandell A, Strawbridge C, Vail A, van Wely M, Vercoe M, Vuong NL, Wang AY, Wang R, Wilkinson J, Wong K, Wong TY, Farquhar CM. Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study. Fertil Steril 2021; 115:180-190. [PMID: 33272617 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.11.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2020] [Revised: 07/05/2020] [Accepted: 07/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management, and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties were entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities, and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI, and IVF), and ethics, access, and organization of care, were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment, and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings, and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research, and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgement, and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/ COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Geoffrey Adamson reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies, and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Andrew Horne reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics. M. Louise Hull reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. Neil Johnson reports research sponsorship from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Jane Stewart reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring, and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Not applicable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J M N Duffy
- King's Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK; Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
| | - G D Adamson
- ARC Fertility, Cupertino, California, United States
| | - E Benson
- Patient and Public Participation Group, Priority Setting Partnership for Infertility, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - S Bhattacharya
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - S Bhattacharya
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - M Bofill
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - K Brian
- Women's Network, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, London, UK
| | - B Collura
- Resolve: The National Infertility Association, Virginia, United States
| | - C Curtis
- School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
| | - J L H Evers
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Biology, University Medical Centre Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - R G Farquharson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - S Franik
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Münster University Hospital, Münster, Germany
| | - L C Giudice
- Center for Research, Innovation and Training in Reproduction and Infertility, Center for Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States; International Federation of Fertility Societies, Mount Royal, New Jersey, United States
| | - E Glanville
- Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - M Hickey
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - A W Horne
- MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - M L Hull
- Robinson Research Institute and Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - N P Johnson
- Robinson Research Institute and Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - V Jordan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Y Khalaf
- Department of Women and Children's Health, Kings College London, London, UK
| | | | - R S Legro
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Penn State College of Medicine, Pennsylvania
| | - S Lensen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - D Mavrelos
- Reproductive Medicine Unit, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - B W Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - D E Morbeck
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; Fertility Associates, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - H Nagels
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - E H Y Ng
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Fertility Regulation, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, China
| | - C Niederberger
- Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | | | - L Puscasiu
- Pharmacy, Science, and Technology, University of Medicine, Targu Mures, Romania; Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - L Sadler
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - I Sarris
- King's Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK
| | - M Showell
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - J Stewart
- British Fertility Society, Middlesex, UK
| | - A Strandell
- Sahlgrenska Academy, Dept of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden
| | | | - A Vail
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - M van Wely
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Vercoe
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - N L Vuong
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
| | - A Y Wang
- Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
| | - R Wang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - J Wilkinson
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - K Wong
- School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
| | - T Y Wong
- Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - C M Farquhar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Duffy JMN, Adamson GD, Benson E, Bhattacharya S, Bhattacharya S, Bofill M, Brian K, Collura B, Curtis C, Evers JLH, Farquharson RG, Fincham A, Franik S, Giudice LC, Glanville E, Hickey M, Horne AW, Hull ML, Johnson NP, Jordan V, Khalaf Y, Knijnenburg JML, Legro RS, Lensen S, MacKenzie J, Mavrelos D, Mol BW, Morbeck DE, Nagels H, Ng EHY, Niederberger C, Otter AS, Puscasiu L, Rautakallio-Hokkanen S, Sadler L, Sarris I, Showell M, Stewart J, Strandell A, Strawbridge C, Vail A, van Wely M, Vercoe M, Vuong NL, Wang AY, Wang R, Wilkinson J, Wong K, Wong TY, Farquhar CM. Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡. Hum Reprod 2020; 35:2715-2724. [PMID: 33252677 PMCID: PMC7744161 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2020] [Revised: 07/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J M N Duffy
- King’s Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK
- Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - E Benson
- Patient and Public Participation Group, Priority Setting Partnership for Infertility, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - S Bhattacharya
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - S Bhattacharya
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - M Bofill
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - K Brian
- Women’s Network, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, London, UK
| | - B Collura
- Resolve: The National Infertility Association, VA, USA
| | - C Curtis
- School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
| | - J L H Evers
- Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Biology, University Medical Centre Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - R G Farquharson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - S Franik
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Münster University Hospital, Münster, Germany
| | - L C Giudice
- Center for Research, Innovation and Training in Reproduction and Infertility, Center for Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
- International Federation of Fertility Societies, Mount Royal, NJ, USA
| | - E Glanville
- Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - M Hickey
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - A W Horne
- MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - M L Hull
- Robinson Research Institute and Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - N P Johnson
- Robinson Research Institute and Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | - V Jordan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Y Khalaf
- Department of Women and Children’s Health, Kings College London, London, UK
| | | | - R S Legro
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Penn State College of Medicine, PA, USA
| | - S Lensen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - D Mavrelos
- Reproductive Medicine Unit, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - B W Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - D E Morbeck
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- Fertility Associates, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - H Nagels
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - E H Y Ng
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
- Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Fertility Regulation, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, China
| | - C Niederberger
- Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | - L Puscasiu
- ARC Fertility, Cupertino, CA, USA
- Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - L Sadler
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - I Sarris
- King’s Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK
| | - M Showell
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - J Stewart
- British Fertility Society, Middlesex, UK
| | - A Strandell
- Sahlgrenska Academy, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden
| | | | - A Vail
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - M van Wely
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Vercoe
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - N L Vuong
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
| | - A Y Wang
- Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
| | - R Wang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - J Wilkinson
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - K Wong
- School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
| | - T Y Wong
- Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - C M Farquhar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Duffy JMN, AlAhwany H, Bhattacharya S, Collura B, Curtis C, Evers JLH, Farquharson RG, Franik S, Giudice LC, Khalaf Y, Knijnenburg JML, Leeners B, Legro RS, Lensen S, Vazquez-Niebla JC, Mavrelos D, Mol BWJ, Niederberger C, Ng EHY, Otter AS, Puscasiu L, Rautakallio-Hokkanen S, Repping S, Sarris I, Simpson JL, Strandell A, Strawbridge C, Torrance HL, Vail A, van Wely M, Vercoe MA, Vuong NL, Wang AY, Wang R, Wilkinson J, Youssef MA, Farquhar CM. Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study. Fertil Steril 2020; 115:191-200. [PMID: 33272618 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.11.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2020] [Revised: 07/08/2020] [Accepted: 07/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J M N Duffy
- King's Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK; Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
| | - H AlAhwany
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby, UK
| | - S Bhattacharya
- School of Medicine, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, UK
| | - B Collura
- RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, Virginia, United States
| | - C Curtis
- Fertility New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand; School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
| | - J L H Evers
- Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - R G Farquharson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - S Franik
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Münster University Hospital, Münster, Germany
| | - L C Giudice
- Center for Research, Innovation and Training in Reproduction and Infertility, Center for Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States; International Federation of Fertility Societies, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| | - Y Khalaf
- Department of Women and Children's Health, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London
| | | | - B Leeners
- Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - R S Legro
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Penn State College of Medicine, Pennsylvania
| | - S Lensen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - J C Vazquez-Niebla
- Cochrane Iberoamerica, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
| | - D Mavrelos
- Reproductive Medicine Unit, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - B W J Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - C Niederberger
- Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - E H Y Ng
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Fertility Regulation, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, China
| | - A S Otter
- Osakidetza OSI, Bilbao, Basurto, Spain
| | - L Puscasiu
- University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology, Targu Mures, Romania
| | | | - S Repping
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - I Sarris
- King's Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK
| | - J L Simpson
- Department of Human and Molecular Genetics, Florida International University, Florida, United States
| | - A Strandell
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden
| | | | - H L Torrance
- Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - A Vail
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - M van Wely
- Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A Vercoe
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - N L Vuong
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
| | - A Y Wang
- Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, Broadway, Australia
| | - R Wang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - J Wilkinson
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - M A Youssef
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - C M Farquhar
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Duffy JMN, Bhattacharya S, Bhattacharya S, Bofill M, Collura B, Curtis C, Evers JLH, Giudice LC, Farquharson RG, Franik S, Hickey M, Hull ML, Jordan V, Khalaf Y, Legro RS, Lensen S, Mavrelos D, Mol BW, Niederberger C, Ng EHY, Puscasiu L, Repping S, Sarris I, Showell M, Strandell A, Vail A, van Wely M, Vercoe M, Vuong NL, Wang AY, Wang R, Wilkinson J, Youssef MA, Farquhar CM. Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study. Fertil Steril 2020; 115:201-212. [PMID: 33272619 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.11.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2020] [Revised: 07/08/2020] [Accepted: 07/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements, and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms, and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J M N Duffy
- King's Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK; Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
| | - S Bhattacharya
- School of Medicine, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, UK
| | - S Bhattacharya
- School of Medicine, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, UK
| | - M Bofill
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - B Collura
- RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, Virginia, United States
| | - C Curtis
- Fertility New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand; School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
| | - J L H Evers
- Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - L C Giudice
- Center for Research, Innovation and Training in Reproduction and Infertility, Center for Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States; International Federation of Fertility Societies, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
| | - R G Farquharson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - S Franik
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Münster University Hospital, Münster, Germany
| | - M Hickey
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - M L Hull
- Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - V Jordan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Y Khalaf
- Department of Women and Children's Health, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London
| | - R S Legro
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Penn State College of Medicine, Pennsylvania
| | - S Lensen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - D Mavrelos
- Reproductive Medicine Unit, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - B W Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - C Niederberger
- Department of Urology, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - E H Y Ng
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Fertility Regulation, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, China
| | - L Puscasiu
- University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology, Targu Mures, Romania
| | - S Repping
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; National Health Care Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands
| | - I Sarris
- King's Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Institute, London, UK
| | - M Showell
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - A Strandell
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - A Vail
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - M van Wely
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Vercoe
- Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - N L Vuong
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
| | - A Y Wang
- Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, Broadway, Australia
| | - R Wang
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - J Wilkinson
- Centre for Biostatistics, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - M A Youssef
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - C M Farquhar
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|