The effect of porcine relaxin vaginally applied at human embryo transfer in an in vitro fertilization programme

Interventions to optimize embryo transfer in women undergoing assisted conception: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Several interventions and techniques are suggested to improve the outcome of embryo transfer (ET) in assisted conception. However, there remains no consensus on the optimal practice, with high variations among fertility specialists.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aiming to identify effective interventions that could be introduced around the time of ET to improve reproductive outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL) from inception until March 2021 using a multi-stage search strategy of MeSH terms and keywords, and included all RCTs that evaluated an intervention in the 24-h period before/after ET in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Our primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate post-ET confirmed as viable pregnancy on ultrasound scan. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effect meta-analysis and reported using risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. We explored publication bias and effect modifiers using subgroup analyses.

OUTCOMES

Our search yielded 3685 citations of which we included 188 RCTs (38 interventions, 59 530 participants) with a median sample size of 200 (range 26-1761). The quality of included RCTs was moderate with most showing a low risk of bias for randomization (118/188, 62.8%) and attrition (105/188, 55.8%) but there was a significant risk of publication bias (Egger's test P = 0.001). Performing ET with ultrasound guidance versus clinical touch (n = 24, RR 1.265, 95% CI 1.151-1.391, I2 = 38.53%), hyaluronic acid versus routine care (n = 9, RR 1.457, 95% CI 1.197-1.261, I2 = 46.48%) and the use of a soft versus hard catheter (n = 27, RR 1.122, 95% CI 1.028-1.224, I2 = 57.66%) led to higher clinical pregnancy rates. Other pharmacological add-ons also showed a beneficial effect including granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF: n = 4, RR 1.774, 95% CI 1.252-2.512, I2 = 0), Atosiban (n = 7, RR 1.493, 95% CI 1.184-1.882, I2 = 68.27%) and hCG (n = 17, RR 1.232, 95% CI 1.099-1.382, I2 = 57.76%). Bed rest following ET was associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy (n = 6, RR 0.857, 95% CI 0.741-0.991, I2 = 0.01%). Other commonly used interventions, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, prophylactic antibiotics, acupuncture and cervical mucus removal, did not show a significant benefit on reproductive outcomes. Our effect estimates for other important outcomes, including miscarriage and live birth, were limited by the varied reporting across included RCTs.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Using ultrasound guidance, soft catheters and hyaluronic acid at the time of ET appears to increase clinical pregnancy rates. The use of Atosiban, G-CSF and hCG showed a trend towards increased clinical pregnancy rate, but larger trials are required before adopting these interventions in clinical practice. Bed rest post-ET was associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy and should not be recommended.

Outcomes for patients with the same disease treated inside and outside of randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether participation in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), irrespective of assigned treatment, is harmful or beneficial to participants. We compared outcomes for patients with the same diagnoses who did ("insiders") and did not ("outsiders") enter RCTs, without regard to the specific therapies received for their respective diagnoses.

METHODS

By searching the MEDLINE (1966-2010), Embase (1980-2010), CENTRAL (1960-2010) and PsycINFO (1880-2010) databases, we identified 147 studies that reported the health outcomes of "insiders" and a group of parallel or consecutive "outsiders" within the same time period. We prepared a narrative review and, as appropriate, meta-analyses of patients' outcomes.

RESULTS

We found no clinically or statistically significant differences in outcomes between "insiders" and "outsiders" in the 23 studies in which the experimental intervention was ineffective (standard mean difference in continuous outcomes -0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.1 to 0.04) or in the 7 studies in which the experimental intervention was effective and was received by both "insiders" and "outsiders" (mean difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.13). However, in 9 studies in which an effective intervention was received only by "insiders," the "outsiders" experienced significantly worse health outcomes (mean difference -0.36, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.12).

INTERPRETATION

We found no evidence to support clinically important overall harm or benefit arising from participation in RCTs. This conclusion refutes earlier claims that trial participants are at increased risk of harm.

Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate

BACKGROUND

Some people believe that patients who take part in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) face risks that they would not face if they opted for non-trial treatment. Others think that trial participation is beneficial and the best way to ensure access to the most up-to-date physicians and treatments. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2005.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient participation in RCTs ('trial effects') independent both of the effects of the clinical treatments being compared ('treatment effects') and any differences between patients who participated in RCTs and those who did not. We aimed to compare similar patients receiving similar treatment inside and outside of RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In March 2007, we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Methodology Register, SciSearch and PsycINFO for potentially relevant studies. Our search yielded 7586 new references. In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized studies and cohort studies with data on clinical outcomes of RCT participants and similar patients who received similar treatment outside of RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 30 new non-randomized cohort studies (45 comparisons): no new RCTs were found. This update now includes five RCTs (yielding 6 comparisons) and 80 non-randomized cohort studies (130 comparisons), with 86,640 patients treated in RCTs and 57,205 patients treated outside RCTs. In the randomised studies, patients were invited to participate in an RCT or not; these comparisons provided limited information because of small sample sizes (a total of 412 patients) and the nature of the questions they addressed. When the results of RCTs and non-randomized cohorts that reported dichotomous outcomes were combined, there were 98 comparisons; there was also heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 42.2%) between studies. No statistical significant differences were found for 85 of the 98 comparisons. Eight comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs. There was significant heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 58.2%) among the 38 continuous outcome comparisons. No statistically significant differences were found for 30 of the 38 comparisons. Three comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that participation in RCTs is associated with similar outcomes to receiving the same treatment outside RCTs. These results challenge the assertion that the results of RCTs are not applicable to usual practice.

Infertility treatment: from cookery to science. The epidemiology of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To review the epidemiology of published randomised controlled trials in infertility treatment over the last 25 years, with special emphasis on the number and quality of trials.

DESIGN

Computer literature review by MEDLINE backed up by a manual search of 41 journals. Each trial was classified according to the methodology described and quality criteria. The results were recorded in a computer database. Odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated where the data were sufficient.

SUBJECTS

Couples suffering from primary or secondary infertility. The trials studied 33,761 patients overall.

SETTING

Institute of Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Leeds.

RESULTS

Five hundred and one randomised trials in male and female infertility treatment were identified between 1966 and 1990. Pregnancy was an outcome in 291 (58%) and these were the subject of detailed analysis. Two hundred and twenty-four (77%) and 67 (23%) 'pregnancy trials' were concerned, respectively, with female and male infertility. Four per cent of the trials were preceded by a sample size calculation, and the average sample size was 96 patients (range 5-933); 700 patients per group would be required to demonstrate plausible success rates for most treatments. The method of randomisation was unstated or pseudo-randomised in 206 (71%) of trials where pregnancy was an outcome. Only 29 (5.8%) of studies were multicentre. The method of confirmation of pregnancy was omitted for 70% of papers. Cross-over design was used in 103 (21%) of cases. Meta-analysis is possible for selected topics such as the use of anti-oestrogens in idiopathic oligospermia and unexplained female infertility. Eight cases of double reporting were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials using randomised methodology were relatively few in comparison with other branches of medicine, although their use is important in the evaluation of treatment for infertility as treatment-independent pregnancy is common. It was encouraging to note that an exponential increase in the use of this methodology occurred during the last three years, especially in association with assisted conception techniques, and meta-analysis has become possible for selected topics. However, many trials suffer from an unrealistically small sample size, inappropriate use of cross-over design or pseudo-randomisation. The trend towards properly controlled studies should be encouraged but these studies should be of improved quality and organised on a multicentre or even international basis.