Reducing research waste in benign gynaecology and fertility research

Protocol for developing a core outcome set for male infertility research: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION

We aim to develop, disseminate and implement a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future male infertility research.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Research into male infertility can be challenging to design, conduct and report. Evidence from randomized trials can be difficult to interpret and of limited ability to inform clinical practice for numerous reasons. These may include complex issues, such as variation in outcome measures and outcome reporting bias, as well as failure to consider the perspectives of men and their partners with lived experience of fertility problems. Previously, the Core Outcome Measure for Infertility Trials (COMMIT) initiative, an international consortium of researchers, healthcare professionals and people with fertility problems, has developed a core outcome set for general infertility research. Now, a bespoke core outcome set for male infertility is required to address the unique challenges pertinent to male infertility research.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

Stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, scientists, researchers and people with fertility problems, will be invited to participate. Formal consensus science methods will be used, including the modified Delphi method, modified Nominal Group Technique and the National Institutes of Health's consensus development conference.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

An international steering group, including the relevant stakeholders outlined above, has been established to guide the development of this core outcome set. Possible core outcomes will be identified by undertaking a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male factor infertility. These outcomes will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Repeated reflection and re-scoring should promote convergence towards consensus outcomes, which will be prioritized during a consensus development meeting to identify a final core outcome set. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This work has been supported by the Urology Foundation small project award, 2021. C.L.R.B. is the recipient of a BMGF grant and received consultancy fees from Exscentia and Exceed sperm testing, paid to the University of Dundee and speaking fees or honoraria paid personally by Ferring, Copper Surgical and RBMO. S.B. received royalties from Cambridge University Press, Speaker honoraria for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Singapore, Merk SMART Masterclass and Merk FERRING Forum, paid to the University of Aberdeen. Payment for leadership roles within NHS Grampian, previously paid to self, now paid to University of Aberdeen. An Honorarium is received as Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. M.L.E. is an advisor to the companies Hannah and Ro. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from the NHMRC, No: GNT1176437 is a paid consultant for ObsEva and has received research funding from Ferring and Merck. R.R.H. received royalties from Elsevier for a book, consultancy fees from Glyciome, and presentation fees from GryNumber Health and Aytu Bioscience. Aytu Bioscience also funded MiOXYS systems and sensors. Attendance at Fertility 2020 and Roadshow South Africa by Ralf Henkel was funded by LogixX Pharma Ltd. R.R.H. is also Editor in Chief of Andrologia and has been an employee of LogixX Pharma Ltd. since 2020. M.S.K. is an associate editor with Human Reproduction Open. K.Mc.E. received an honoraria for lectures from Bayer and Pharmasure in 2019 and payment for an ESHRE grant review in 2019. His attendance at ESHRE 2019 and AUA 2019 was sponsored by Pharmasure and Bayer, respectively. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative registration No: 1586. Available at www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1586.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

N/A.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

N/A.

Outcome reporting across randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male infertility: a systematic review

STUDY QUESTION

What are the primary outcomes and outcome measures used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating potential treatments for male infertility in the last 10 years?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Outcome reporting across male infertility trials is heterogeneous with numerous definitions and measures used to define similar outcomes.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

No core outcome set for male infertility trials has been developed. Male infertility trials are unique in that they have potentially three participants, a man, a female partner and their offspring and this will likely lead to significant variation in outcome reporting in randomized trials.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

A systematic review of RCTs mapping outcomes and outcome measures evaluating potential treatments for men with infertility registered in the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 2010 and July 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Abstract screening and study selection was undertaken in duplicate using a review protocol that was developed prior to commencing the review. No risk of bias assessment was undertaken as this review aims to report on outcome reporting only.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

One hundred and seventy-five RCTs were identified, and given the large number of studies we limited our review to the 100 largest trials. Seventy-nine different treatments were reported across the 100 largest RCTs including vitamin and dietary supplements (18 trials), surgical treatments (18 trials) and sperm selection techniques (22 trials). When considering the largest 100 trials (range: 80-2772 participants), 36 primary and 89 secondary outcomes were reported. Forty-seven trials reported a primary outcome and 36 trials clearly defined their primary outcome. Pregnancy outcomes were inconsistently reported and included pregnancy rate (51 trials), pregnancy loss including miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth (9 trials) and live birth (13 trials). Trials consistently reporting the same outcome frequently used different definitions. For example, semen quality was reported by 75 trials and was defined in 7 different ways, including; the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 criteria (32 trials), WHO 1999 criteria (18 trials), WHO 1992 criteria (3 trials), WHO 1999 and 1992 criteria (1 trial) and the Kruger strict morphology criteria (1 trial).

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

We only evaluated the 100 largest trials published in the last 10 years and did not report outcomes on the remaining 75. An outcome was included as a primary outcome only if clearly stated in the manuscript and we did not contact authors to clarify this. As our review mapped outcomes and outcome measures, we did not undertake an integrity assessment of the trials included in our review.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Most randomized trials evaluating treatments for male infertility report different outcomes. Only half of the RCTs reported pregnancy rate and even fewer reported live birth; furthermore, the definitions of these outcomes varies across trials. Developing, disseminating and implementing a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for male infertility research could help to improve outcome selection, collection and reporting.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

A.P.-chairman of external scientific advisory committee of Cryos International Denmark ApS, member of the scientific advisory board for Cytoswim LDT and ExSeed Health. Guest lecture at the 'Insights for Fertility Conference', funded by MERK SERONO Limited. M.v.W.-holds a ZON-MW research grant. No external funding was obtained for this study.

A protocol for developing a core outcome set for ectopic pregnancy

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ectopic pregnancy have reported many different outcomes, which are themselves often defined and measured in distinct ways. This level of variation results in an inability to compare results of individual RCTs. The development of a core outcome set to ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are collected consistently will guide future research in ectopic pregnancy.

Study aim

To develop and implement a core outcome set to guide future research in ectopic pregnancy.

Methods and analysis

We have established an international steering group of key stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, researchers, and individuals with lived experience of ectopic pregnancy. We will identify potential outcomes from ectopic pregnancy from a comprehensive literature review of published randomised controlled trials. We will then utilise a modified Delphi method to prioritise outcomes. Subsequently, key stakeholders will be invited to score potential core outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not important) to 9 (critical). Repeated reflection and rescoring should promote whole and individual stakeholder group convergence towards consensus ‘core’ outcomes. We will also establish standardised definitions and recommend high-quality measurements for individual core outcomes.

Trial registration

COMET 1492. Registered in November 2019.

A systematic review of outcome reporting and outcome measures in studies investigating uterine-sparing treatment for adenomyosis

STUDY QUESTION

Which outcomes and outcome measures are reported in interventional trials evaluating the treatment of adenomyosis?

SUMMARY ANSWER

We identified 38 studies, reporting on 203 outcomes using 133 outcome measures.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Heterogeneity in outcome evaluation and reporting has been demonstrated for several gynaecological conditions and in fertility studies. In adenomyosis, previous systematic reviews have failed to perform a quantitative analysis for central outcomes, due to variations in outcome reporting and measuring.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A systematic search of Embase, Medline and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was performed with a timeframe from 1950 until February 2021, following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Studies reporting on any uterus-sparing intervention to treat adenomyosis, both prospective and retrospective, were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were a clear definition of diagnostic criteria for adenomyosis and the modality used to make the diagnosis, a clear description of the intervention, a follow-up time of ≥6 months, a study population of n ≥ 20, a follow-up rate of at least 80%, and English language. The population included premenopausal women with adenomyosis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We included 38 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 32 cohort studies), including 5175 participants with adenomyosis. The studies described 10 interventions and reported on 203 outcomes, including 43 classified as harms, in 29 predefined domains. Dysmenorrhoea (reported in 82%), heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) (in 79%) and uterine volume (in 71%) were the most common outcomes. Fourteen different outcome measures were used for dysmenorrhoea and 17 for HMB. Quality of life was reported in 9 (24%) studies, patient satisfaction with treatment in 1 (3%). A clear primary outcome was stated in only 18%.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This review includes studies with a high risk of bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Shortcomings in the definition and choice of outcomes and outcome measures limit the value of the conducted research. The development and implementation of a core outcome set (COS) for interventional studies in adenomyosis could improve research quality. This review suggests a lack of patient-centred research in adenomyosis and people with adenomyosis should be involved in the development and implementation of the COS.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

No funds specifically for this work were received. T.T. receives fees from General Electrics for lectures on ultrasound independently of this project.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42020177466) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative (registration number 1649).

Standardizing abortion research outcomes (STAR): Results from an international consensus development study

Objective

To develop a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future abortion randomized controlled trials.

Study design

We extracted outcomes from quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews of abortion studies to assess using a modified Delphi method. Via email, we invited researchers, clinicians, patients, and healthcare organization representatives with expertise in abortion to rate the importance of the outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale. After 2 rounds, we used descriptive analyses to determine which outcomes met the predefined consensus criteria. We finalized the core outcome set during a series of consensus development meetings.

Results

We entered 42 outcomes, organized in 15 domains, into the Delphi survey. Two-hundred eighteen of 251 invitees (87%) provided responses (203 complete responses) for round 1 and 118 of 218 (42%) completed round2. Sixteen experts participated in the development meetings. The final outcome set includes 15 outcomes: 10 outcomes apply to all abortion trials (successful abortion, ongoing pregnancy, death, hemorrhage, uterine infection, hospitalization, surgical intervention, pain, gastrointestinal symptoms, and patients’ experience of abortion); 2 outcomes apply to only surgical abortion trials (uterine perforation and cervical injury), one applies only to medical abortion trials (uterine rupture); and 2 apply to trials evaluating abortions with anesthesia (over-sedation/respiratory depression and local anesthetic systemic toxicity).

Conclusion

Using robust consensus science methods we have developed a core outcome set for future abortion research.

Implications

Standardized outcomes in abortion research could decrease heterogeneity among trials and improve the quality of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. Researchers should select, collect, and report these core outcomes in future abortion trials. Journal editors should advocate for core outcome set reporting.

Effect of Local Anesthetics on Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Gynecologic Laparoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

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.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study† ‡

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.

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡

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.

Coordination and planning of clinical research on a national and global level

In reproductive medicine, the needs and desires of infertility patients drive future research, with the most important outcome being live birth of a baby. Large, multicenter, randomized clinical trials are considered the best research tool to evaluate the effectiveness of medical interventions, but they can often take a long time to find definitive answers. Advances in individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis have enabled research questions to be answered more quickly, but better planning could streamline this process further. To harmonize research findings that are taking place globally in this way, it is crucial that the same outcomes are collected in clinical trials conducted in reproductive medicine. Furthermore, the conduct of clinical trials often requires collaboration on an international scale; however, individual countries have their own processes for research prioritization and delivery. We describe the perspective of high- and low-resourced settings and industry as well as the mechanisms of prioritization and coordination that are in place in different settings. In addition, we discuss the importance of the patient perspective, which can help shape the research question, clinical trial design, and the logistical operations of trial delivery. The need for increased global collaboration and coalitions within and between stakeholders is evident for the research community to accelerate advances and maximize benefits in reproductive medicine.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

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.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡

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.

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

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.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

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.

A core outcome set for pre-eclampsia research: an international consensus development study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia.

DESIGN

Consensus development study.

SETTING

International.

POPULATION

Two hundred and eight-one healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 patients, representing 56 countries, participated.

METHODS

Modified Delphi method and Modified Nominal Group Technique.

RESULTS

A long-list of 116 potential core outcomes was developed by combining the outcomes reported in 79 pre-eclampsia trials with those derived from thematic analysis of 30 in-depth interviews of women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia. Forty-seven consensus outcomes were identified from the Delphi process following which 14 maternal and eight offspring core outcomes were agreed at the consensus development meeting. Maternal core outcomes: death, eclampsia, stroke, cortical blindness, retinal detachment, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, liver haematoma or rupture, abruption, postpartum haemorrhage, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, admission to intensive care required, and intubation and ventilation. Offspring core outcomes: stillbirth, gestational age at delivery, birthweight, small-for-gestational-age, neonatal mortality, seizures, admission to neonatal unit required and respiratory support.

CONCLUSIONS

The core outcome set for pre-eclampsia should underpin future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such implementation should ensure that future research holds the necessary reach and relevance to inform clinical practice, enhance women's care and improve the outcomes of pregnant women and their babies.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

281 healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 women have developed #preeclampsia core outcomes @HOPEoutcomes @jamesmnduffy. [Correction added on 29 June 2020, after first online publication: the order has been corrected.].

Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis

BACKGROUND

Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of pain and infertility associated with endometriosis.

SEARCH METHODS

This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group including searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, reference lists for relevant trials, and trial registries from inception to April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment, or diagnostic laparoscopy only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. We collected data for the core outcome set for endometriosis. Primary outcomes included overall pain and live birth. We evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs. The studies randomised 1563 women with endometriosis. Four RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with laparoscopic ablation or excision and uterine suspension. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation with diagnostic laparoscopy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation with laparoscopic excision. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with helium thermal coagulator with laparoscopic ablation or excision with electrodiathermy. One RCT compared conservative laparoscopic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal resection of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and poor reporting of outcome data. Laparoscopic treatment versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain scores compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only at six months (mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.49; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence) and at 12 months (MD 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.19; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence), where a positive value means pain relief (the higher the score, the more pain relief) and a negative value reflects pain increase (the lower the score, the worse the increase in pain). No studies looked at live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on quality of life compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only: EuroQol-5D index summary at six months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence), 12-item Short Form (SF-12) mental health component (MD 2.30, 95% CI -4.50 to 9.10; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence) and SF-12 physical health component (MD 2.70, 95% CI -2.90 to 8.30; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence). Laparoscopic treatment probably improves viable intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (odds ratio (OR) 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86; 3 RCTs, 528 participants; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only on ectopic pregnancy (MD 1.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 13.48; 1 RCT, 100 participants; low quality evidence) and miscarriage (MD 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54; 2 RCTs, 112 participants; low quality evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse events. No conversions to laparotomy were reported in both groups (1 RCT, 341 participants). Laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection on adverse events (more specifically vascular injury) compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32; 1 RCT, 141 participants; low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. Laparoscopic ablation versus laparoscopic excision There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in overall pain, measured at 12 months, for laparoscopic ablation compared with laparoscopic excision (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 103 participants; very low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores at six months, live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events. Helium thermal coagulator versus electrodiathermy We are uncertain whether helium thermal coagulator compared to electrodiathermy improves quality of life using the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) at nine months, when considering the components: pain (MD 6.68, 95% CI -3.07 to 16.43; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), control and powerlessness (MD 4.79, 95% CI -6.92 to 16.50; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), emotional well-being (MD 6.17, 95% CI -3.95 to 16.29; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence) and social support (MD 5.62, 95% CI -6.21 to 17.45; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence). Adverse events were not estimable. No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. No data were reported on live birth. There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. No studies were found that looked at live birth for any of the comparisons. Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.

Standardising definitions for the pre-eclampsia core outcome set: A consensus development study

OBJECTIVES

To develop consensus definitions for the core outcome set for pre-eclampsia.

STUDY DESIGN

Potential definitions for individual core outcomes were identified across four formal definition development initiatives, nine national and international guidelines, 12 Cochrane systematic reviews, and 79 randomised trials. Eighty-six definitions were entered into the consensus development meeting. Ten healthcare professionals and three researchers, including six participants who had experience of conducting research in low- and middle-income countries, participated in the consensus development process. The final core outcome set was approved by an international steering group.

RESULTS

Consensus definitions were developed for all core outcomes. When considering stroke, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, birth weight, and neonatal seizures, consensus definitions were developed specifically for low- and middle-income countries because of the limited availability of diagnostic interventions including computerised tomography, chest x-ray, laboratory tests, equipment, and electroencephalogram monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus on measurements for the pre-eclampsia core outcome set will help to ensure consistency across future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such standardization should make research evidence more accessible and facilitate the translation of research into clinical practice. Video abstract can be available at: www.dropbox.com/s/ftrgvrfu0u9glqd/6.%20Standardising%20definitions%20in%20teh%20pre-eclampsia%20core%20outcome%20set%3A%20a%20consensus%20development%20study.mp4?dl=0.

Core outcome set for studies investigating management of selective fetal growth restriction in twins

OBJECTIVE

Selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR) occurs in monochorionic twin pregnancies when unequal placental sharing leads to restriction in the growth of just one twin. Management options include laser separation of the fetal circulations, selective reduction or expectant management, but what constitutes the best treatment is not yet known. New trials in this area are urgently needed but, in this rare and complex group, maximizing the relevance and utility of clinical research design and outputs is paramount. A core outcome set ensures standardized outcome collection and reporting in future research. The objective of this study was to develop a core outcome set for studies evaluating treatments for sFGR in monochorionic twins.

METHODS

An international steering group of clinicians, researchers and patients with experience of sFGR was established to oversee the process of development of a core outcome set for studies investigating the management of sFGR. Outcomes reported in the literature were identified through a systematic review and informed the design of a three-round Delphi survey. Clinicians, researchers, and patients and family representatives participated in the survey. Outcomes were scored on a Likert scale from 1 (limited importance for making a decision) to 9 (critical for making a decision). Consensus was defined a priori as a Likert score of ≥ 8 in the third round of the Delphi survey. Participants were then invited to take part in an international meeting of stakeholders in which the modified nominal group technique was used to consider the consensus outcomes and agree on a final core outcome set.

RESULTS

Ninety-six outcomes were identified from 39 studies in the systematic review. One hundred and three participants from 23 countries completed the first round of the Delphi survey, of whom 88 completed all three rounds. Twenty-nine outcomes met the a priori criteria for consensus and, along with six additional outcomes, were prioritized in a consensus development meeting, using the modified nominal group technique. Twenty-five stakeholders participated in this meeting, including researchers (n = 3), fetal medicine specialists (n = 3), obstetricians (n = 2), neonatologists (n = 3), midwives (n = 4), parents and family members (n = 6), patient group representatives (n = 3), and a sonographer. Eleven core outcomes were agreed upon. These were live birth, gestational age at birth, birth weight, intertwin birth-weight discordance, death of surviving twin after death of cotwin, loss during pregnancy or before final hospital discharge, parental stress, procedure-related adverse maternal outcome, length of neonatal stay in hospital, neurological abnormality on postnatal imaging and childhood disability.

CONCLUSIONS

This core outcome set for studies investigating the management of sFGR represents the consensus of a large and diverse group of international collaborators. Use of these outcomes in future trials should help to increase the clinical relevance of research on this condition. Consensus agreement on core outcome definitions and measures is now required. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Research priority setting in women's health: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance.

OBJECTIVE

To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women's health.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52-4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39-104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results.

CONCLUSION

Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women's health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy.

A core outcome set for future endometriosis research: an international consensus development study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core outcome set for endometriosis.

DESIGN

Consensus development study.

SETTING

International.

POPULATION

One hundred and sixteen healthcare professionals, 31 researchers and 206 patient representatives.

METHODS

Modified Delphi method and modified nominal group technique.

RESULTS

The final core outcome set includes three core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for pain and other symptoms associated with endometriosis: overall pain; improvement in the most troublesome symptom; and quality of life. In addition, eight core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for infertility associated with endometriosis were identified: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound; pregnancy loss, including ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy; live birth; time to pregnancy leading to live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital abnormalities. Two core outcomes applicable to all trials were also identified: adverse events and patient satisfaction with treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Using robust consensus science methods, healthcare professionals, researchers and women with endometriosis have developed a core outcome set to standardise outcome selection, collection and reporting across future randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for endometriosis. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @coreoutcomes for future #endometriosis research have been developed @jamesmnduffy.

Methodological decisions influence the identification of potential core outcomes in studies related to pre-eclampsia: an analysis informing the development of recommendations for future core outcome set developers

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the effect of different methodological decisions on the identification of potential core outcomes to inform the development of recommendations for future core coutcome set developers.

DESIGN

Mixed methods study.

SETTING

A core outcome set for pre-eclampsia was used as an exemplar.

SAMPLE

A long list of potential core outcomes was developed by undertaking a systematic review of pre-eclampsia trials and performing a thematic analysis of in-depth patient interviews.

METHODS

Specific methods used to generate long lists of potential core outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Different methodological decisions had a substantial impact on the identification of potential core outcomes. Extracting outcomes from published pre-eclampsia trials was an effective way of identifying 48 maternal, eight fetal, 25 neonatal outcomes, and eight patient-reported outcomes. Limiting the extraction of outcomes to primary outcomes or outcomes commonly reported in pre-eclampsia trials reduced the number and diversity of potential core outcomes identified. Thematic analysis of in-depth patient interviews ensured an additional five patient reported outcomes and six outcomes related to future child health were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Future core outcome set developers should use quantitative and qualitative methods when developing a long list of potential core outcomes. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @OfficialNIHR research published in @BJOGtweets informs new recommendations for future @coreoutcomes developers.

Mapping research in assisted reproduction worldwide

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the current research trends in human assisted reproduction around the world?

DESIGN

An analysis of 26,000+ scientific publications (articles, letters and reviews) produced worldwide between 2005 and 2016. The corpus of publications indexed in PubMed was obtained by combining the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms: 'Reproductive techniques', 'Reproductive medicine', 'Reproductive health', 'Fertility', 'Infertility' and 'Germ cells'. An analysis was then carried out using text mining algorithms to obtain the main topics of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 44 main topics were identified, which were then further grouped into 11 categories: 'Laboratory techniques', 'Male factor', 'Quality of ART, ethics and law', 'Female factor', 'Public health and infectious diseases', 'Basic research and genetics', 'Pregnancy complications and risks', 'General - infertility & ART', 'Psychosocial aspects', 'Cancer' and 'Research methodology'. The USA was the leading country in terms of number of publications, followed by the UK, China and France. Research content in high-income countries is fairly homogeneous across categories and it is dominated by 'Laboratory techniques' in Western-Southern Europe, and by 'Quality of ART, ethics and law' in North America, Australia and New Zealand. 'Laboratory techniques' is also the most abundant category on a yearly basis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies the current hot topics on human assisted reproduction worldwide and their temporal trends for 2005-2016. This provides an innovative picture of the current research that could help explore the areas where further research is needed.

Core outcome set for research studies evaluating treatments for twin-twin transfusion syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To develop, using a Delphi procedure and a nominal group technique, a core outcome set (COS) for studies evaluating treatments for twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), which should assist in standardizing outcome selection, collection and reporting in future research studies.

METHODS

An international steering group comprising healthcare professionals, researchers and patients with experience of TTTS guided the development of this COS. Potential core outcomes, identified through a comprehensive literature review and supplemented by outcomes suggested by the steering group, were entered into a three-round Delphi survey. Healthcare professionals, researchers, and patients or relatives of patients who had experienced TTTS were invited to participate. Consensus was defined a priori using the 15%/70% definition of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. The modified nominal group technique was used to evaluate the consensus outcomes in a face-to-face consultation meeting and identify the final COS.

RESULTS

One hundred and three participants, from 29 countries, participated in the three-round Delphi survey. Of those, 88 completed all three rounds. Twenty-two consensus outcomes were identified through the Delphi procedure and entered into the modified nominal group technique. The consensus meeting was attended by 11 healthcare professionals, two researchers and three patients; 12 core outcomes were prioritized for inclusion in the COS. Fetal core outcomes included live birth, pregnancy loss (including miscarriage, stillbirth, termination of pregnancy and neonatal mortality), subsequent death of a cotwin following single-twin demise at the time of treatment, recurrence of TTTS, twin anemia-polycythemia sequence and amniotic band syndrome. Neonatal core outcomes included gestational age at delivery, birth weight, brain injury syndromes and ischemic limb injury. Maternal core outcomes included maternal mortality and admission to Level-2 or -3 care setting. One aspirational outcome, neurodevelopment at 18-24 months of age, was also prioritized.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing the COS for TTTS within future research studies could make a substantial contribution to advancing the usefulness of research in TTTS. Standardized definitions and measurement instruments are now required for individual core outcomes. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Outcome reporting across randomized trials and observational studies evaluating treatments for twin-twin transfusion syndrome: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Potential treatments for the condition require robust evaluation. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcome reporting across observational studies and randomized controlled trials assessing treatments for TTTS.

METHODS

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from inception to August 2016. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials reporting outcome following treatment for TTTS in monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancy and monochorionic-triamniotic or dichorionic-triamniotic triplet pregnancy were included. Outcome reporting was systematically extracted and categorized.

RESULTS

Six randomized trials and 94 observational studies were included, reporting data from 20 071 maternal participants and 3199 children. Six different treatments were evaluated. Included studies reported 62 different outcomes, including six fetal, seven offspring mortality, 25 neonatal, six early childhood and 18 maternal/operative outcomes. Outcomes were reported inconsistently across trials. For example, when considering offspring mortality, 31 (31%) studies reported live birth, 31 (31%) reported intrauterine death, 49 (49%) reported neonatal mortality and 17 (17%) reported perinatal mortality. Four (4%) studies reported respiratory distress syndrome. Only 19 (19%) studies were designed for long-term follow-up and 11 (11%) of these reported cerebral palsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies evaluating treatments for TTTS have often neglected to report clinically important outcomes, especially neonatal morbidity outcomes, and most are not designed for long-term follow-up. The development of a core outcome set could help standardize outcome collection and reporting in TTTS studies. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set

Introduction

We assessed outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse and explored the relationships between outcome reporting quality with journal impact factor, year of publication, and methodological quality.

Methods

We searched the bibliographical databases from inception to October 2017. Two researchers independently selected studies and assessed study characteristics, methodological quality (Jadad criteria; range 1–5), and outcome reporting quality Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate (MOMENT) criteria; range 1–6], and extracted relevant data. We used a multivariate linear regression to assess associations between outcome reporting quality and other variables.

Results

Eighty publications reporting data from 10,924 participants were included. Seventeen different surgical interventions were evaluated. One hundred different outcomes and 112 outcome measures were reported. Outcomes were inconsistently reported across trials; for example, 43 trials reported anatomical treatment success rates (12 outcome measures), 25 trials reported quality of life (15 outcome measures) and eight trials reported postoperative pain (seven outcome measures). Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a relationship between outcome reporting quality with methodological quality (β = 0.412; P = 0.018). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality with impact factor (β = 0.078; P = 0.306), year of publication (β = 0.149; P = 0.295), study size (β = 0.008; P = 0.961) and commercial funding (β = −0.013; P = 0.918).

Conclusions

Anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse trials report many different outcomes and outcome measures and often neglect to report important safety outcomes. Developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set will help address these issues.

Do we need a core outcome set for childbirth perineal trauma research? A systematic review of outcome reporting in randomised trials evaluating the management of childbirth trauma

BACKGROUND

Selecting appropriate outcomes to reflect both beneficial and harmful effects is a critical step in designing childbirth trauma trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes and outcome measures reported in randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions for childbirth trauma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised trials were identified by searching bibliographical databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of different techniques in the management of perineal lacerations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two researchers independently assessed studies for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality, and extracted the relevant data. Spearman's ρ correlation and multivariate linear regression analysis using the backward stepwise model were used for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-eight randomised trials, reporting data from 20 308 women, were included. Seventeen different interventions were evaluated. Included trials reported 77 different outcomes and 50 different outcome measures. Commonly reported outcomes included pain (34 trials; 70%), wound healing (20 trials; 42%), and anorectal dysfunction (16 trials, 33%). In the multivariate analysis, no relationship was demonstrated between the quality of outcome reporting and year of publication (P = 0.31), journal impact factor (P = 0.49), and methodological quality (P = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

Outcome reporting in childbirth trauma research is heterogeneous. Developing, disseminating, and implementing a core outcome set in future childbirth trauma research could help address these issues.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Developing @coreoutcomes for childbirth trauma research could help to reduce #research waste.

A protocol developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set for infertility

STUDY QUESTIONS

We aim to produce, disseminate and implement a core outcome set for future infertility research.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating infertility treatments have reported many different outcomes, which are often defined and measured in different ways. Such variation contributes to an inability to compare, contrast and combine results of individual RCTs. The development of a core outcome set will ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are consistently collected and reported across future infertility research.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a consensus study using the modified Delphi method. All stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, researchers and people with lived experience of infertility will be invited to participate.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

An international steering group, including people with lived experience of infertility, healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals and researchers, has been formed to guide the development of this core outcome set. Potential core outcomes have been identified through a comprehensive literature review of RCTs evaluating treatments for infertility and will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Participants will be asked to score potential core outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale anchored between one (not important) and nine (critical). Repeated reflection and rescoring should promote convergence towards consensus ‘core’ outcomes. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This project is funded by the Royal Society of New Zealand Catalyst Fund (3712235). BWM reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, Merck, and ObsEva. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Fractyl and Ogeda and research sponsorship from Ferring. S.B. is the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Inadequate safety reporting in pre-eclampsia trials: a systematic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials and their syntheses in meta-analyses offer a unique opportunity to assess the frequency and severity of adverse reactions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess safety reporting in pre-eclampsia trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Systematic search using bibliographic databases, including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE, from inception to August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials evaluating anticonvulsant or antihypertensive medication for pre-eclampsia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics appraising the adequacy of adverse reaction and toxicity reporting.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 60 randomised trials. Six trials (10%) were registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, two registry records referred to adverse reactions, stating 'safety and toleration' and 'possible side effects' would be collected. Twenty-six trials (43%) stated the frequency of withdrawals within each study arm, and five trials (8%) adequately reported these withdrawals. Adverse reactions were inconsistently reported across eligible trials: 24 (40%) reported no serious adverse reactions and 36 (60%) reported no mild adverse reactions. The methods of definition or measurement of adverse reactions were infrequently reported within published trial reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-eclampsia trials regularly omit critical information related to safety. Despite the paucity of reporting, randomised trials collect an enormous amount of safety data. Developing and implementing a minimum data set could help to improve safety reporting, permitting a more balanced assessment of interventions by considering the trade-off between the benefits and harms.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research (DRF-2014-07-051), UK; Maternity Forum, Royal Society of Medicine, UK.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Developing @coreoutcomes could help to improve safety reporting in #preeclampsia trials. @NIHR_DC.

A systematic review of primary outcomes and outcome measure reporting in randomized trials evaluating treatments for pre-eclampsia

BACKGROUND

An evaluation of outcome reporting is required to develop a core outcome set.

OBJECTIVES

To assess primary outcomes and outcome measure reporting in pre-eclampsia trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Five online databases were searched from inception to January 2016 using terms including "preeclampsia" and "randomized controlled trial".

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for pre-eclampsia published in any language were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Primary outcomes and data on outcome measure reporting were systematically extracted and categorized.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 79 randomized trials including data from 31 615 women were included. Of those, 38 (48%) reported 35 different primary outcomes; 28 were maternal outcomes and seven were fetal/neonatal outcomes. Three randomized trials reported composite outcomes, incorporating between six and nine outcome components. The method of definition or measurement was infrequently or poorly reported. Even when outcomes were consistent across trials, different methods of definition or measurement were frequently described.

CONCLUSIONS

In randomized trials evaluating interventions for pre-eclampsia, critical information related to the primary outcome, including definition and measurement, is regularly omitted. Developing a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia trials would help to inform primary outcome selection and outcome measure reporting.