A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INSPECT-SR project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion.

Methods

We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorised these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list.

Results

Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool.

Conclusions

A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.

When to randomize patients in a randomized controlled trial?

The timing of randomization should be considered carefully in the context of each trial because it has implications for the particular research question answered. In most instances, randomization should be delayed until as close as practically possible to the moment of intervention. In some cases, early randomization may offer certain advantages, but trialists should balance these, including any administrative complexity or inconvenience, against the risk of avoidable protocol violations and avoidable drop out.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.

Attitudes, knowledge and practice regarding the anti-müllerian hormone test among general practitioners and reproductive specialists: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To describe clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) test.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional nationwide survey.

SETTING

Australia.

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

A total of 362 general practitioners (GPs), gynaecologists and reproductive specialists.

METHODS

Clinicians were recruited through relevant professional organisations, with data collected from May 2021 to April 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the AMH test, measured using multiple choice, Likert scales and open-ended items.

RESULTS

Fifteen percent of GPs (n = 27) and 40% of gynaecologists and other specialists (n = 73) order at least one AMH test per month. Specialists reported raising the idea of testing most of the time, whereas GPs reported that patient request was more common. Half of clinicians lacked confidence interpreting (n = 182, 51%) and explaining (n = 173, 48%) an AMH result to their patients. Five percent (n = 19) believed the test was moderately/very useful in predicting natural conception/birth and 22% (n = 82) believed the same for predicting premature menopause, despite evidence that the test cannot reliably predict either. Forty percent (n = 144) had previously ordered the test to help with reproductive planning and 21% (n = 75) to provide reassurance about fertility.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians reported use of AMH testing in clinical circumstances not supported by the evidence. With the proliferation of direct-to-consumer testing, efforts to support clinicians in the judicious use of testing and effectively navigating patient requests are needed.

What do women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) understand about their chance of IVF success?

STUDY QUESTION

How well informed are Australian women who undergo IVF about their chances of having a baby?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Only one in four women estimated their individual chance of success with IVF accurately, with most women overestimating their chance.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Limited knowledge about infertility and infertility treatment in the general population is well-documented. The few studies that have investigated patients' knowledge about the chance of IVF success suggest that while IVF patients are aware of average success rates, they tend to be unrealistic about their own chance of success.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We conducted an anonymous online survey of 217 women who had started IVF since 2018 in Australia. The survey was advertised on social media, enabling women from across Australia to participate. Responses were collected in June 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The survey included questions on demographic characteristics and IVF history. It asked what participants thought their chance of having a baby from one IVF treatment cycle was, how they rated their knowledge about chance of success, and about their experience of receiving IVF-related information. Participants' estimations of their chance of success were compared with their chance as calculated by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology's (SART) online calculator. Responses to a free-text question about what information women wished they had been given when they started treatment were analysed thematically.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Only about a quarter (58/217, 27%) of participants accurately estimated their chance of having a baby within 20% relative to their SART calculated chance, with more than half (118/217, 54%) overestimating their chance. Ninety percent of women indicated that their preferred source of treatment information was a consultation with their doctor, despite less than half (44%) reporting that doctors explained the probability of having a baby with IVF well (mean 5.9/10). In free-text responses, many women also reported that they wished they had been given more realistic information about IVF and their chance of success.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The dissemination method precludes calculation of response rate, and it is not possible to know if participants are representative of all women undergoing IVF. Additionally, we only surveyed women undergoing IVF, while those who decided not to have IVF were not included. Therefore, women who overestimated their chance may have been overrepresented. There is also inherent imprecision in the way understanding of chance of success was estimated. The potential impact of recall bias could neither be quantified nor excluded. It is difficult to determine to what extent women's lack of understanding of what is possible with IVF is due to poor information-provision by clinicians and the clinic, and how much can be explained by optimism bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The finding of poor understanding of personal chance of success amongst women undergoing IVF in Australia requires further investigation to determine potential reasons for this. The findings can be used by clinics to develop strategies for improvement in the information-provision process to ensure that women can make informed decisions about their fertility treatment.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study received no external funding. S.L. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1195189). R.W. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP2009767). B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck and ObsEva and has received research funding and travel funding from Merck. The other authors have no conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Correlations among Core Outcomes in Menopause-recommended vasomotor symptom outcomes in MsFLASH trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to advance understanding of vasomotor symptom (VMS) outcomes measurement using pooled data from three Menopause Strategies Finding Lasting Answers to Symptoms and Health (MsFLASH) trials.

METHODS

Participants self-reported VMS frequency, severity, and bother using daily diaries; completed standardized measures of VMS interference, insomnia severity, and sleep quality/disturbance; and completed four treatment satisfaction items. Analyses included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations (baseline pooled sample, posttreatment pooled sample, posttreatment placebo only), t tests, and analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Participants were mostly postmenopausal (82.9%) and a mean of 54.5 years old. VMS frequency was fairly correlated with severity, bother, and interference for pooled baseline and placebo posttreatment samples ( r values = 0.21-0.39, P values < 0.001) and moderately correlated with severity, bother, and interference for pooled posttreatment ( r values = 0.40-0.44, P values < 0.001). VMS severity, bother, and interference were moderately correlated ( r values = 0.37-0.48, P values < 0.001), with one exception. VMS severity and bother were strongly correlated ( r values = 0.90-0.92, P values < 0.001). VMS interference was moderately correlated with insomnia ( r values = 0.45-0.54, P values < 0.001) and fairly to moderately correlated with sleep quality/disturbance ( r values = 0.31-0.44, P values < 0.001). Other VMS outcomes were weakly to fairly correlated with insomnia ( r values = 0.07-0.33, P values < 0.001 to < 0.05) and sleep quality/disturbance ( r values = 0.06-0.26, P values < 0.001 to > 0.05). Greater improvement in VMS and sleep over time was associated with higher treatment satisfaction ( P values < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis advances understanding of VMS outcomes measurement and has implications for selecting measures and creating future research.

Providers' attitudes towards payment to egg donors: an international survey

The research question 'How do fertility professionals worldwide perceive the issue of payment for egg donation and does this view change under different circumstances?' was addressed. A worldwide online survey was conducted between January and March 2023, focusing on the views of fertility providers concerning egg donor payments. From the 3,790 IVF-Worldwide.com members invited, 532 (14%) from 88 countries responded. The majority of participants, primarily from Europe (38.9%) and Asia (20.1%), were fertility specialists, embryologists, and fertility nurses. Most (60.3%) favoured regulated donor compensation, with only 13% advocating for unrestricted amounts. Compensation opposition (22.4%) was often rooted in concerns about donors' best interests. When considering egg donation from low-resource to high-resource countries, 38.5% were opposed. When asked about compensating women who underwent elective, non-medical egg freezing should they choose to donate their unused oocytes, most responders supported it to some degree, with only 28.4% opposing any compensation. The survey revealed that a significant majority of fertility professionals worldwide are supportive of some form of compensation for egg donors. However, perspectives diverge depending on the specific scenario and the country of practice.

Is the use of IVF add-on treatments driven by patients or clinics? Findings from a UK patient survey

There are conflicting narratives over what drives demand for add-ons. We undertook an online survey of IVF patients to determine whether patients perceive that use of IVF add-ons is driven by patients or practitioners. People who underwent IVF in the UK in the previous five years were recruited via social media Survey questions focussed on the roles of clinician offer and patient request, including who first suggested use of add-ons in IVF consultations, where patients first heard about them, and which information sources they trusted. From a total of 261 responses, 224 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 67% of respondents had used one or more IVF add-ons, most commonly: time-lapse imaging (27%), EmbryoGlue (27%), and endometrial scratching (26%). Overall, 81% of the add-ons used were offered to participants by clinicians (compared to 19% requested by themselves). Half (54%) reported being offered add-ons during consultations, compared to 24% who initiated discussion about add-ons. Higher proportions of private patients reported being offered (90%), requesting (47%) and using (74%) add-ons than those with NHS funding (74%, 29%, 52%, respectively). The main limitations of this study are the small sample size, recruitment via a convenience sample, and the self-reported data capture which is subject to recall bias.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions

Introduction

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INSPECT-SR project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare related interventions.

Methods and analysis

The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: 1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, 2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, 3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in 4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format, 5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies, and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.

Endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: an individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In IVF/ICSI treatment, the process of embryo implantation is the success rate-limiting step. Endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve this process, but it is unclear if this procedure increases the chance of implantation and live birth (LB) and, if so, for whom, and how the scratch should be performed.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aims to answer the question of whether endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI influences the chance of a LB, and whether this effect is different in specific subgroups of women. After its incidental discovery in 2000, endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve embryo implantation. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted, showing contradicting results. Conventional meta-analyses were limited by high within- and between-study heterogeneity, small study samples, and a high risk of bias for many of the trials. Also, the data integrity of several trials have been questioned. Thus, despite numerous RCTs and a multitude of conventional meta-analyses, no conclusion on the clinical effectiveness of endometrial scratching could be drawn. An IPD-MA approach is able to overcome many of these problems because it allows for increased uniformity of outcome definitions, can filter out studies with data integrity concerns, enables a more precise estimation of the true treatment effect thanks to adjustment for participant characteristics and not having to make the assumptions necessary in conventional meta-analyses, and because it allows for subgroup analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

A systematic literature search identified RCTs on endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Authors of eligible studies were invited to share original data for this IPD-MA. Studies were assessed for risk of bias (RoB) and integrity checks were performed. The primary outcome was LB, with a one-stage intention to treat (ITT) as the primary analysis. Secondary analyses included as treated (AT), and the subset of women that underwent an embryo transfer (AT+ET). Treatment-covariate interaction for specific participant characteristics was analyzed in AT+ET.

OUTCOMES

Out of 37 published and 15 unpublished RCTs (7690 participants), 15 RCTs (14 published, one unpublished) shared data. After data integrity checks, we included 13 RCTs (12 published, one unpublished) representing 4112 participants. RoB was evaluated as 'low' for 10/13 RCTs. The one-stage ITT analysis for scratch versus no scratch/sham showed an improvement of LB rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.29 [95% CI 1.02-1.64]). AT, AT+ET, and low-RoB-sensitivity analyses yielded similar results (OR 1.22 [95% CI 0.96-1.54]; OR 1.25 [95% CI 0.99-1.57]; OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.03-1.55], respectively). Treatment-covariate interaction analysis showed no evidence of interaction with age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, or infertility cause.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This is the first meta-analysis based on IPD of more than 4000 participants, and it demonstrates that endometrial scratching may improve LB rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Subgroup analysis for age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, and infertility cause could not identify subgroups in which endometrial scratching performed better or worse. The timing of endometrial scratching may play a role in its effectiveness. The use of endometrial scratching in clinical practice should be considered with caution, meaning that patients should be properly counseled on the level of evidence and the uncertainties.

Patient and professional perspectives about using in vitro fertilisation add-ons in the UK and Australia: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) add-ons are additional procedures offered alongside an IVF cycle with the aim of improving live birth rates. They are controversial because of the paucity of evidence to support their efficacy and safety, alongside the additional financial cost they often pose to patients. Despite this, they are popular. However, there is limited qualitative research regarding their use. The aims of the VALUE Study were to understand the decision-making process surrounding using or recommending add-ons; report sources of information for add-ons; and explore concerns for safety and effectiveness when considering their use.

DESIGN

'VALUE' is a qualitative semistructured interview study using inductive thematic analysis of anonymised transcriptions.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from a broad geographical spread across the UK and Australia from public and private clinical settings.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (n=25) and health professionals (embryologists (n=25) and clinicians (n=24)) were interviewed. A purposive sampling strategy was undertaken. The sampling framework included people having state-subsidised and private cycles, professionals working in public and private sectors, geographical location and professionals of all grades.

RESULTS

Patients often made decisions about add-ons based on hope, minimising considerations of safety, efficacy or cost, whereas professionals sought the best outcomes for their patients and wanted to avoid them wasting their money. The driving forces behind add-on use differed: for patients, a professional opinion was the most influential reason, whereas for professionals, it was seen as patient driven. For both groups, applying the available evidence to individual circumstances was very challenging, especially in the sphere of IVF medicine, where the stakes are high.

CONCLUSIONS

There is scope to build on the quality of the discourse between patients and professionals. Patients describe valuing their autonomy with add-ons, but for professionals, undertaking informed consent will be critical, no matter where they sit on the spectrum regarding add-ons.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

osf.io/vnyb9.

Endometrial scratching in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (UK): a follow-up survey

Endometrial scratching is a common IVF add-on. In 2015, a survey in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (UK) reported that 83% of fertility specialists recommended endometrial scratching for IVF. Several large trials have since been published reporting no clear evidence for improved live birth rates following endometrial scratching before IVF. An online survey was undertaken to ascertain the current practices and views across Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. A total of 121 eligible responses were received between October and December 2020 (fertility specialists (n = 61), embryologists (n = 26) and fertility nurses (n = 24)). Among fertility specialists, 34% currently offer endometrial scratching, mostly in the case of recurrent implantation failure. Most respondents were neutral or did not believe endometrial scratching improved pregnancy and live birth rates (>90%), except for in women with recurrent implantation failure (29% believed it can increase pregnancy and live birth rates in this group). More than half of respondents viewed reducing psychological distress as a benefit of endometrial scratching (55%). Among fertility specialists not offering endometrial scratching, 51% previously offered it but no longer do. The decline in use over the last five years likely reflects a response to recent evidence reporting no benefit from the procedure.

Community awareness and use of anti-Müllerian hormone testing in Australia: a population survey of women

STUDY QUESTION

What is the anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test usage, awareness, and perceived reasons for testing in a representative community sample of women in Australia?

SUMMARY ANSWER

: Among women aged 18-55 years, 13% had heard about AMH testing and 7% had had an AMH test, with the top three reasons for testing including due to infertility investigations (51%), considering pregnancy and wanting to understand their chances (19%) or to find out if a medical condition had affected fertility (11%).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The growing availability of direct-to-consumer AMH testing has raised concerns about overuse, however as most AMH tests are paid for privately by consumers, data on test usage is not publicly available.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

National cross-sectional survey of 1773 women, conducted in January 2022.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Females aged 18-55 years were recruited from the representative 'Life in Australia' probability-based population panel and completed the survey online or by telephone. Main outcome measures included if and how participants had heard about AMH testing, whether they had ever had an AMH test, main reason for testing and test access.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Of the 2423 women who were invited 1773 responded (73% response rate). Of these, 229 (13%) had heard about AMH testing and 124 (7%) had had an AMH test. Testing rates were highest among those currently aged 35-39 years (14%) and associated with educational attainment. Almost all accessed the test through their general practitioner or fertility specialist. Reasons for testing were: part of an infertility investigation (51%), considering pregnancy and wanting to understand chances of conceiving (19%), finding out if a medical condition had affected fertility (11%), curiosity (9%), considering egg freezing (5%), and considering delaying pregnancy (2%).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Although the sample was large and mostly representative, it was over-represented by people holding a university degree and under-represented by people aged 18-24, however, we used weighted data where possible to account for this. All data were self-reported so there is a risk of recall bias. The number of survey items was also restricted, so the type of counselling women received prior to testing, reasons for declining an AMH test or test timing were not measured.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Whilst most women reported having an AMH test for appropriate reasons, about one third had it for reasons not supported by evidence. Public and clinician education about the lack of utility of AMH testing for women not undergoing infertility treatment is needed.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This project was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence grant (1104136) and Program grant (1113532). T.C. is supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellowship (2009419). B.W.M. reports research funding, consultancy and travel support from Merck. D.L. is the Medical Director of City Fertility NSW and reports consultancy for Organon, Ferring, Besins and Merck. The authors have no other competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

"It all depends on why it's red": qualitative interviews exploring patient and professional views of a traffic light system for IVF add-ons

Background IVF add-ons are techniques, medicines or procedures used in addition to standard IVF with the aim of improving the chance of success. The United Kingdom's IVF regulator, ( the Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority (HFEA) developed a traffic light system to categorise add-ons as either green, amber, or red, based on results of randomised controlled trials. Method Qualitative interviews were undertaken to explore understanding and views of the HFEA traffic light system among IVF clinicians, embryologists and IVF patients across Australia and the United Kingdom. Results A total of 73 interviews were conducted. Overall, participants were supportive of the intention of the traffic light system, however many limitations were raised. It was widely recognized that a simple traffic light system necessarily omits information which may be important to understanding the evidence base. In particular, the red category was used in scenarios that patients viewed as having different implications for their decision-making, including 'no evidence' and 'evidence of harm'. Patients were surprised at the absence of any green add-ons and questioned the value of a traffic light system in this context. Many participants considered the website a helpful starting point, but desired more detail, including the contributing studies, results specific to patient demographics (e.g., <35 years and >35 years), and inclusion of more options (e.g. acupuncture). Overall, participants believed the website to be reliable and trustworthy, particularly due to the Government affiliation, and despite some concerns regarding transparency and an overly cautious regulator. Conclusion Participants identified many limitations with the current application of the traffic light system. These could be considered in any future updates to the HFEA website and for others developing similar decision support tools.

Elective egg freezers' disposition decisions: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the factors that influence elective egg freezers' disposition decisions toward their surplus-frozen oocytes.

DESIGN

Qualitative.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Thirty-one participants: 7 past; 6 current; and 18 future oocyte disposition decision-makers.

INTERVENTION(S)

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

RESULTS

Six inter-related themes were identified related to the decision-making process which are as follows: decisions are dynamic; triggers for the final decision; achieving motherhood; conceptualization of oocytes; the impacts of egg donation on others; and external factors affecting the final disposition outcome. All women reported a type of trigger event for making a final decision (e.g., completing their family). Women who achieved motherhood were more open to donating their oocytes to others but were concerned about the implications for their child and felt responsibility for potential donor children. Women who did not achieve motherhood were unlikely to donate to others due to the grief of not becoming a mother, often feeling alone, misunderstood, and unsupported. Reclaiming oocytes (e.g., taking them home) and closure ceremonies helped some women process their grief. Donating to research was viewed as an altruistic option as oocytes would not be wasted and did not have the "complication" of a genetically-linked child. There was a general lack of knowledge around disposition options at all stages of the process.

CONCLUSION(S)

Oocyte disposition decisions are dynamic and complex for women, exacerbated by a general lack of understanding of these options. The final decision is framed by: whether women achieved motherhood, dealing with grief if they did not achieve motherhood, and considering the complexities of donating to others. Additional decision support through counseling, decision aids, and early consideration of disposition when eggs are initially stored may help women make informed decisions.

How do IVF patients interpret claims about fertility treatments? A randomised survey experiment

Trials evaluating the efficacy of IVF and various treatment options often focus on upstream outcome measures, improvements which may not translate into clinical outcome improvements. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed globally among IVF patients. Respondents were randomised to view one of 16 statements about a hypothetical IVF treatment option called 'FertiSure', stated to improve one of four upstream outcomes. Statements varied in whether they contained information stating that FertiSure was not proven to improve live-birth rates and about potential risks. Many patients inferred that improvements in upstream outcomes would result in improvements in the probability of live-birth. Nearly 80% of respondents were willing to use FertiSure. Respondents told that FertiSure was not proven to improve live-birth rates and were less willing to use FertiSure. More respondents agreed that FertiSure may pose a risk to patients when they were told this was the case. However, this did not affect their willingness to use FertiSure. Interestingly, 34% of respondents believed FertiSure would not improve the probability of live-birth but were still willing to use it. These results have implications for IVF clinic websites and information about treatment options which may not routinely contain statements about the limited evidence-base and possible risks.

Barriers to reproductive treatments in Australia

BACKGROUND

Most couples in Australia want to have children but some might not attain their reproductive goals, experiencing involuntary childlessness or not reaching their desired family size. There is increased focus on helping couples achieve their reproductive goals. Identifying existing barriers, such as those related to social and societal factors, access to treatment and treatment success, is crucial to optimising outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This article discusses existing barriers to reproduction to help general practitioners (GPs) raise the topic of future fertility with patients, care for those presenting with fertility concerns and support those undergoing fertility treatment.

DISCUSSION

Recognition of the impact of barriers such as age to achieving reproductive goals remains the highest priority for GPs. This will help them to broach this topic with patients, carry out a timely evaluation or provide referral, as well as discuss opportunities such as elective egg freezing. Other barriers can be mitigated by educating patients, informing them about available resources and supporting those undergoing fertility treatment as part of a multidisciplinary reproductive team.

The role of timing in frozen embryo transfer

The process of implantation is characterized by a complex cross-talk between the endometrium and the blastocyst, with the endometrium only being receptive to implantation during a transient window of implantation of approximately 2-3 days during the midsecretory phase. The timing of embryo transfer, including frozen embryo transfer, is therefore critical to the success of implantation. In this article, we discuss various elements that may guide the timing of frozen embryo transfer, including the role of endometrial characteristics such as thickness, days postovulation or length of progesterone administration, stage of the embryo, and the application of endometrial receptivity tests to guide personalized embryo transfer.

Creativity in lockdown: Understanding how music and the arts supported mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic by age group

Recent research has indicated that many people around the world turned to artistic creative activities (ACAs) to support their mental health during COVID-19 lockdowns. However, studies have also shown that the negative psychosocial impacts of the pandemic have disproportionately affected young people, suggesting that the use of ACAs to support mental health in lockdown may have varied across age groups. This study investigated how Australians in four different age groups (18–24, 25–34, 35–54, and 55+) engaged in ACAs to support their mental health during the 2020 pandemic lockdowns. Participants (N = 653) recruited from the general public completed an online survey between May and October 2020, in which they reported which ACAs they had undertaken during the pandemic using an established list. Participants subsequently ranked undertaken ACAs in terms of effectiveness at making them “feel better,” and those who had engaged in musical ACAs also completed the Musical Engagement Questionnaire (MusEQ). Additionally, ratings of anxiety (GAD7) and depression (PHQ9) symptoms were obtained and examined for potential variations across four diverse variables: age, exercise, gender and state/territory of residence. ACA rankings showed that younger participants overwhelmingly rated musical activities as most effective, while, with the exception of singing, those aged 55+ rated non-musical activities as being most effective. These differences were further supported by ratings for all six MusEQ subscales, with responses strongly indicating that the youngest participants (aged 18–24) used music in significantly different ways during the pandemic than participants in all other age groups. Specifically, these youngest participants were more likely to integrate music into daily life, use music for emotion regulation, respond to music in embodied ways, and use music to perform a social identity. In line with prior research, further analyses indicated that symptoms of anxiety and depression were lessened for older participants, as well for those who reported exercising more during the lockdowns. These findings provide insight into how ACAs can support mental health during a pandemic crisis for specific age groups, which may inform future policy directions, and suggestions for how this can be done are provided.

Surveys of clinician and patient attitudes to an add-on for in vitro fertilisation

BACKGROUND

Add-ons at the time of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) have become commonplace, despite a general lack of evidence that they are effective and safe. The 'Colorado Protocol' is a commonly used add-on consisting of aspirin, steroid and an antibiotic. Before commencing planning for a clinical trial evaluating the Colorado Protocol, researchers and funders need evidence that the Colorado Protocol is being prescribed, and to be assured that sufficient numbers of participants can be recruited for a clinical trial.

AIMS

To survey fertility clinicians and patients on attitudes toward use of add-ons during IVF, willingness of patients to be randomly assigned to an add-on trial treatment or placebo, and what would be the clinically meaningful outcomes, using the Colorado Protocol as a test case.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two online surveys were conducted: clinicians from fertility clinics across the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand; and patients from Auckland-based clinics and NZ patient support groups.

RESULTS

Of 58 clinicians, 44 (75%) had recommended an add-on within the preceding year. Thirty-nine (67%) clinicians were aware of the Colorado Protocol, with 17 (29%) having recommended it within the preceding year. Of the 289 patients, 80% indicated willingness to take trial medications during IVF, and 68% were willing to be randomly assigned to the placebo arm of a trial. The median perceived minimum clinically important difference in live births in both samples was 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

A future trial of this add-on in IVF would be supported by patients in the context of the New Zealand fertility healthcare system.

O-200 Women’s understanding of their personal chance of success with IVF

Study question

How well informed are Australian women who undergo In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) about their treatment and their chances of having a baby?

Summary answer

Only one in four women accurately estimated their individual chance of success with IVF and most women overestimated their chance.

What is known already

IVF is the cornerstone of infertility treatment, and high quality, transparent and reliable treatment information is essential for patient-centred care. A recent review into IVF practice in Victoria, Australia has highlighted deficiencies in information-provision. Similar findings have also been reported internationally. An assessment of women’s understanding of various aspects of the treatment is needed to identify information gaps that should be addressed by clinicians. While limited knowledge about infertility and infertility treatment in the general population is well-documented, little is known about the level of knowledge about infertility treatment among women undergoing IVF treatment.

Study design, size, duration

We conducted an anonymous online survey of women who had started IVF since 2018 in Australia. The survey aimed to assess how well-informed women feel about their treatment, and was advertised on social media, enabling women from across Australia to participate. Responses were collected from 3 to 21 June 2021.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

The survey included questions on demographic characteristics and IVF history. It also asked how well-informed participants felt about their treatment, what they thought their chance of having a baby from one IVF treatment cycle was, how they rated their knowledge about chance of success, and about their experience of receiving IVF-related information. Participants’ beliefs about chance of success were compared with their chance as calculated by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology’s (SART) online calculator.

Main results and the role of chance

The survey was completed by 225 women. Only about a quarter (25.8%) of participants accurately estimated their chance of success within 20% relative to their SART calculated chance, and more than half (52.4%) overestimated their chance. Among women who rated their understanding of their chance of success as ‘high’ (7-10/10), less than one third (31.6%) accurately estimated their chance of success. Older age and having undergone several cycles were associated with women being more likely to overestimate their chance of success (odds ratios of 3.2 and 2.5, respectively). Ninety percent of women indicated that their preferred source of treatment information was a consultation with their doctor, despite many women reporting that doctors only explained the probability of having a baby with IVF moderately well (mean 5.9/10). Women also reported that they wished they had been given more realistic information about IVF and their chance of success. It is difficult to determine to what extent women’s lack of understanding of what is possible with IVF is due to poor information-provision by clinicians and the clinic, and how much can be explained by optimism bias.

Limitations, reasons for caution

The dissemination method precludes calculation of response rate, and it is not possible to know if participants are representative of all women undergoing IVF. There is inherent imprecision in the way understanding of chance of success was estimated. The potential impact of recall bias could neither be quantified nor excluded.

Wider implications of the findings

The poor understanding of personal chance of success amongst women undergoing IVF in Australia, highlights the need for systematic and evidence-based improvement in the way clinics inform patients about the probability of having a baby with IVF. Further research into how information-provision in IVF can be improved is needed.

Trial registration number

Not applicable

O-227 Has time-lapse technology finally proven its clinical benefit?

Background

Time-lapse technology for the observation of embryos is not new, having been first described in 1930 by Dr WH Lewis using rabbit embryos. However, the use of software (using artificial intelligence and deep learning) linked to known clinical outcomes theoretically helps the embryologist select the ‘best’ embryo for embryo transfer. Time-lapse also reduces the need to manually handle embryos and is hypothesised would reduce biases due to interobserver variation and improve clinical outcomes. Whilst the technology may help improve laboratory workflow, the quantitative evidence is less clear. This raises the ethical question about charging extra for a technology which does not improve patient outcome. In offering time-lapse, professionals have argued that it responds to patient demand and the need to be seen as ‘cutting edge’. However, the patient perspective for using time-lapse has, until recently, been largely unexplored.

Methods

This presentation relies on three sources of evidence: (i) Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and newly published RCTs not yet incorporated into systematic reviews; (ii) Qualitative studies concerning the consideration or use of time-lapse in those undergoing IVF; and (iii) A qualitative study (VALUE) of patient professional views regarding time-lapse, amongst other add-ons.

Results

The latest Cochrane systematic review undertook three comparisons to best establish where the potential advantage of time-lapse may lie: (i) undisturbed culture; (ii) the use of software to select the embryo to replace; or (iii) a combination of both stable culture and software. For all outcomes assessed, including crucially livebirth and miscarriage, there was no good evidence to show that time-lapse was any more or less effective than conventional methods of embryo incubation. These findings are supported by another systematic review by Chen et al (2017). A large RCT (TILT) is currently underway and will be the largest RCT to examine the clinical effectiveness and safety of time-lapse. TILT is expected to complete recruitment soon.

The VALUE study is an international qualitative semi-structured interview study of patients, embryologists, and clinicians to explore the reasons behind the decisions to use non-evidence-based treatment ‘add-ons’ alongside an IVF cycle. Over half of patient participants interviewed opted to use time-lapse. Inductive thematic analysis revealed five key themes for patients: (i) ‘vulnerability’; (ii) ‘power of the trusted professional opinion’; (iii) ‘role of previous experience’; (iv) ‘acceptability of add-on’; and (v) ‘the evidence doesn’t apply to me’. The analysis of the professional participants’ interviews revealed five themes, some of which mirror the patient themes: (i) ‘treating desperation’; (ii) ‘the patient shopper’; (iii) ‘success not profits’; (iv) ‘potential for harm’; and (v) ‘tensions within evidence-based practice’.

Discussion

Time-lapse has been adopted widely across fertility clinics globally, and with good reason. It brings efficiencies and convenience for embryologists by allowing them to observe embryos remotely. However, the highest quality evidence does not support the notion that it improves livebirth or reduces miscarriage rates. Qualitative research shows that patients can make choices about add-ons that can leave them in debt due to desperation and the desire to look for hope in an otherwise uncontrollable situation. Professionals acknowledge this, and in their desire to achieve a pregnancy, they sometimes look to add-ons such as time-lapse as a ‘why not’ when previous cycles have failed. Patients describe how they do not want to be denied time-lapse but want it in the context of informed consent. This must include being open about the paucity of evidence to support its effectiveness at this stage.

O-078 The VALUE study: a qualitative semi-structured interview study of add-on use by patients, clinicians, and embryologists in the UK and Australia

Study question

Why do patients, clinicians and embryologists opt to use IVF add-ons in fertility treatment?

Summary answer

Add-ons offer options, hope and control in a desperate situation. The perceived drivers differ between patients and professionals; however, both feel add-ons offer bespoke care.

What is known already

Evidence that add-ons offer clinical advantages for the outcomes of IVF is lacking or insufficient. However, they remain popular in the UK and Australia, with over three-quarters of couples opting to use them. Professionals, clinical societies, and the media have latched onto the ethical aspects of offering non-evidence-based add-ons, often provided at an additional cost to vulnerable patients. Conversely, it has also been suggested that patients are driving add-on use. The VALUE study is the first large qualitative study to include both patients and professionals that explores the drivers behind their use, and how the existing evidence is weighed up.

Study design, size, duration

VALUE was a multinational semi-structured interview study in the UK and Australia. The interview schedule was reached through extensive patient and public involvement. Between January and May 2021, recruitment took place via social media advertisement, email invitation from professional societies, and snowballing. A purposive sampling strategy was planned; all eligible participants (25 patients, 25 embryologists, and 24 clinicians) were interviewed via recorded teleconference. Anonymised verbatim transcripts were analysed iteratively, and themes developed inductively.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Patient and professional transcripts were coded separately using the software DedooseTM Two separate thematic analyses followed. An inductive approach to analysis was adopted, whereby themes emerged from the data, opposed to constructing a pre-conceived coding scheme. Codes were combined into broader themes, and sub-themes, which were discussed, debated, and named. The wider research team then commented upon and debated the themes and sub-themes, which were settled upon by consensus.

Main results and the role of chance

Thematic analysis of patient interviews identified five themes: ‘vulnerability’; ‘power of the trusted professional opinion’; ‘role of previous experience’; ‘acceptability of add-on’; and ‘the evidence doesn’t apply to me’. The professional interviews identified five themes: ‘Treating desperation’; ‘tensions within evidence-based practice’; ‘success, not profits’; ‘the patient shopper’; and ‘potential for harm’.

Analysis identified that that people undergoing IVF are vulnerable and opting for non-evidence-based treatments at additional cost because of a sense of desperation following unsuccessful cycles. For patients, utilising add-ons lends hope and a sense of control, with considerations of safety and efficacy being ranked lower than hope. For professionals, add-ons are reasonable given the absence of anything else to add, and allows patients the opportunity to exhaust every avenue. At odds with one-another are the themes regarding who is driving add-on use. Patients describe the power of a professional recommendation, believing it to be in their best interest. For professionals, it’s the patients who research and request add-ons, and failing to offer them risks losing patients. The tension between evidence and bespoke care was evident across both analyses, with testimonies being particularly powerful for patients, and for professionals, a belief that add-ons are helpful in the right context.

Limitations, reasons for caution

The VALUE study has captured patients and professionals who have volunteered to talk about this particularly contentious area of medicine. Participants are likely to be a motivated group of individuals who may potentially represent those with strong views regarding add-ons.

Wider implications of the findings

The theme of desperation runs through VALUE’s analyses and whilst we did find that patients drive add-on use, professional opinion for or against add-ons was powerful. Patients want autonomy, but only in the context of informed consent.

Trial registration number

https://osf.io/he7tn/

Are we leaving money on the table in infertility RCTs? Trialists should statistically adjust for prespecified, prognostic covariates to increase power

Infertility randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often too small to detect realistic treatment effects. Large observational studies have been proposed as a solution. However, this strategy threatens to weaken the evidence base further, because non-random assignment to treatments makes it impossible to distinguish effects of treatment from confounding factors. Alternative solutions are required. Power in an RCT can be increased by adjusting for prespecified, prognostic covariates when performing statistical analysis, and if stratified randomization or minimization has been used, it is essential to adjust in order to get the correct answer. We present data showing that this simple, free and frequently necessary strategy for increasing power is seldom employed, even in trials appearing in leading journals. We use this article to motivate a pedagogical discussion and provide a worked example. While covariate adjustment cannot solve the problem of underpowered trials outright, there is an imperative to use sound methodology to maximize the information each trial yields.

A randomized trial of endometrial scratching in women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction cycles

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does endometrial scratching improve the chance of a live birth in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) undergoing ovulation induction and trying to conceive?

DESIGN

An international, multicentre, randomized, sham-controlled trial across six fertility clinics in three countries (New Zealand, UK and Brazil). Women with a diagnosis of PCOS who were planning to commence ovulation induction cycles (at least three cycles) in order to conceive were randomly assigned to receive the pipelle (scratch) procedure or a sham (placebo) procedure in the first cycle of ovulation induction. Women kept a diary of ovulation induction and sexual intercourse timing over three consecutive cycles and pregnancies were followed up to live birth. Primary outcome was live birth and secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, adverse pregnancy outcomes, neonatal outcomes, bleeding following procedure and pain score following procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 117 women were randomized; 58 to the scratch group and 59 to the sham group. Live birth occurred in 11 (19%) women in the scratch group and 14 (24%) in the sham group (odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-1.92). Secondary outcomes were similar in each group. Significantly higher pain scores were reported in the scratch group (adjusted mean difference 3.2, 95% CI 2.5-3.9) when measured on a visual analogue scale.

CONCLUSION

No difference was detected in live birth rate for women with PCOS who received an endometrial scratch when trying to conceive using ovulation induction; however, uncertainty remains due to the small sample size in this study.

Disposition intentions of elective egg freezers toward their surplus frozen oocytes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the disposition outcomes and disposition intentions of elective egg freezers (EEFs) toward their surplus frozen oocytes and the psychosocial determinants underlying these.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Actual EEFs (women with oocytes in storage), potential EEFs (women investigating elective oocyte cryopreservation or about to freeze their oocytes), and women of reproductive age (women in the community aged ≥18 years).

INTERVENTION(S)

A systematic review was undertaken and electronically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO on the Ovid platform for conference abstracts and peer-reviewed articles, published in English after January 1, 2010. A search strategy combined synonyms for oocyte, cryopreservation, donation, disposition, elective, and attitude. Eligible studies assessed disposition outcomes (how an oocyte was disposed of) and disposition intentions (how women intend to dispose of an oocyte) and/or the psychosocial determinants underlying disposition outcomes and intentions. The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Tool was used to assess the risk of bias. A meta-analysis using random effects was applied to pool proportions of women with similar disposition intentions toward their oocytes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Disposition outcomes and intentions toward surplus frozen oocytes: donate to research; donate to others; discard; unsure. Psychosocial determinants (beliefs, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators) of disposition outcomes and intentions.

RESULT(S)

A total of 3,560 records were identified, of which 22 (17 studies) met the inclusion criteria (8 studies from Europe, 7 from North America, and 2 from Asia). No studies reported on past oocyte disposition outcomes. Seventeen studies reported on the future disposition intentions of 5,446 women. Only 2 of the 17 studies reported on the psychosocial determinants of oocyte disposition intentions. There was substantial heterogeneity in the pooled results, which was likely a result of the significant variation in methodology. Actual EEFs were included in eight studies (n = 873), of whom 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44-63; I², 87%) would donate surplus oocytes to research, 31% (95% CI, 23-40; I², 72%) were unsure, 26% (95% CI, 17-38; I², 92%) would donate to others, and 12% (95% CI, 6-21; I², 88%) would discard their eggs. Psychosocial determinants: One study reported that 50% of these women were aware of friends and/or family having difficulty conceiving, which may have contributed to their willingness to donate to others. Potential EEFs were included in 4 studies (n = 645), of whom 38% (95% CI, 28-50; I², 84%) would donate to research, 32% (95% CI, 17-51; I², 91%) would donate to others, 29% (95% CI, 17-44; I², 89%) would discard, and 7% (95% CI, 1-27; I², 77%) were unsure. Psychosocial determinants: No studies. Women of reproductive age were included in 5 studies (n = 3,933), of whom 59% (95% CI, 48-70; I², 97%) would donate to research and 46% (95% CI, 35-57; I², 98%) would donate to others. "Unsure" and "discard" were not provided as response options. Psychosocial determinants: One study reported that the facilitators for donation to others included a family member or friend in need, to help others create a family, financial gain, to further science, and control or input over the selection of recipients. Barriers for donation included fear of having a biological child they do not know or who is raised by someone they know.

CONCLUSION(S)

No studies reported on the disposition outcomes of past EEFs. Disposition intentions varied across the three groups; however, "donating to research" was the most common disposition preference. Notably, the second disposition preference for one-third of actual EEFs was "unsure" and for one-third of potential EEFs was "donate to others." There were limited studies for actual and potential EEFs, and only two studies that explored the psychosocial determinants of oocyte disposition intentions. Additionally, these data suggest that disposition decisions change as women progress on their egg freezing journey, highlighting the importance of ongoing contact with the fertility team as intentions may change over time. More research is needed to understand the psychosocial determinants of oocyte disposition decisions so fertility clinics can provide EEFs with the support and information they need to make informed decisions about their stored eggs and reduce the level of uncertainty reported among EEFs and the potential risk of psychological distress and regret.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020202733.

O-215 How common is add-on use and how do patients decide whether to use them? A national survey of IVF patients

Study question

How common is IVF add-on use in Australia, and what drives the use?

Summary answer

Most women (82%) had used one or more IVF add-ons and more than half (54%) first learned about the add-ons from their fertility specialist.

What is known already

IVF add-ons are procedures, techniques or medicines which may be considered nonessential to IVF, usually used in attempts to improve the probability of conception and live birth. Despite widespread concern about unproven IVF add-ons, information about the prevalence of their use is limited because these data are not available in national registries or datasets.

Study design, size, duration

Women who had undergone IVF in Australia since 2017 were recruited via social media. Women were excluded if they were gestational surrogates, had used a surrogate, or underwent IVF for oocyte donation or elective oocyte cryopreservation only. Eligible women completed an online survey which was open from 21st June to 14th July 2020.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Survey questions included demographics, IVF and medical history, and questions specifically about IVF add-ons such as: the type of add-ons used, information sources consulted, and where participants first heard about add-ons. Women also responded to questions about the importance of scientific evidence regarding safety and effectiveness, factors considered in decision-making around add-on use and the presence of any decision regret.

Main results and the role of chance

A total of 1,590 responses were analyzed after excluding 287 ineligible responses. Participants were generally representative of women who undergo IVF in Australia in terms of age, indication for IVF, and use of ICSI for fertilisation. Most women had used at least one add-on (82%), and these were usually associated with an additional fee (72%). It was most common to first learn about IVF add-ons from the fertility specialist (54%), and most women reported that they and their specialist contributed equally to the decision to use add-ons.

Women viewed scientific evidence for safety and effectiveness as very important

on a scale from 0-100, an importance score over 90 was selected by more than half of the participants. Additionally, many (49%) assumed that add-ons were risk-free. Most women experienced regret at the decision to use IVF add-ons (66%), and this regret was greatest among women who experienced IVF failure when using add-ons (83%) and those who believed that the specialist drove the decision to use the add-ons (75%).

Limitations, reasons for caution

This was a retrospective survey of IVF patients, therefore it may suffer from bias due to patient recall. It does not consider the perspective of the IVF clinic or fertility specialist. Certain questions may be more prone to biased responses, such as those regarding who contributed to decision making.

Wider implications of the findings

The high prevalence of add-on use is likely generalizable to other settings where IVF treatment is largely private. Although women viewed scientific evidence as very important, most had used unproven IVF add-ons. This might suggest that women were not aware of the lack of robust evidence to support their use.

Trial registration number

Not applicable

How common is add-on use and how do patients decide whether to use them? A national survey of IVF patients

STUDY QUESTION

What is the prevalence and pattern of IVF add-on use in Australia?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Among women having IVF in the last 3 years, 82% had used one or more IVF add-on, most commonly acupuncture, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and Chinese herbal medicine.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

IVF add-ons are procedures, techniques or medicines which may be considered nonessential to IVF, but usually used in attempts to improve the probability of conception and live birth. The use of IVF add-ons is believed to be widespread; however, there is little information about the prevalence and patterns of use in different settings.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

An online survey was distributed via social media to women in Australia who had undergone IVF since 2017. Women were excluded if they were gestational surrogates, used a surrogate, or underwent ovarian stimulation for oocyte donation or elective oocyte cryopreservation only. The survey was open from 21 June to 14 July 2020.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Survey questions included demographics, IVF and medical history, and use of IVF add-ons including details of the type of add-on, costs and information sources used. Participants were also asked about the relative importance of evidence regarding safety and effectiveness, factors considered in decision-making and decision regret.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 1590 eligible responses were analysed. Overall, 82% of women had used one or more add-ons and these usually incurred an additional cost (72%). Around half (54%) had learned about add-ons from their fertility specialist, and most reported that the decision to use add-ons was equally shared with the specialist. Women placed a high level of importance on scientific evidence for safety and efficacy, and half (49%) assumed that add-ons were known to be safe. Most women experienced some regret at the decision to use IVF add-ons (66%), and this was more severe among women whose IVF was unsuccessful (83%) and who believed that the specialist had a larger contribution to the decision to use add-ons (75%).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This retrospective survey relied on patient recall. Some aspects were particularly prone to bias such as contributions to decision-making. This approach to capturing IVF add-on use may yield different results to data collected directly from IVF clinics or from fertility specialists.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

There is a very high prevalence of IVF add-on use in Australia which may be generalisable to other settings with similar models of IVF provision. Although women placed high importance on scientific evidence to support add-ons, most add-ons do not have robust evidence of safety and effectiveness. This suggests that IVF patients are not adequately informed about the risks and benefits of IVF add-ons, or are not aware of the paucity of evidence to support their use.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was supported by a McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellowship Grant (University of Melbourne), a Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Innovation Grant (University of Melbourne) and an NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1195189). A.P. declares that he provides fertility services at Melbourne IVF (part of Virtus Health). J.W. reports grants from Wellcome Trust, during the conduct of the study, and that publishing benefits his career. The remaining authors report no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test information on Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites: a content analysis

OBJECTIVES

The anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test has been promoted as a way to inform women about their future fertility. However, data consistently show the test is a poor predictor of natural fertility potential for an individual woman. As fertility centre websites are often a primary source of information for reproductive information, it is essential the information provided is accurate and reflects the available evidence. We aimed to systematically record and categorise information about the AMH test found on Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites.

DESIGN

Content analysis of online written information about the AMH test on fertility clinic websites.

SETTING

Accredited Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites.

METHODS

Data were extracted between April and June 2020. Any webpage that mentioned the AMH test, including blogs specifically about the AMH test posted since 2015, was analysed and the content categorised.

RESULTS

Of the 39 active accredited fertility clinics' websites, 25 included information about the AMH test. The amount of information varied widely, and embodied four overarching categories; (1) the utility of the AMH test, (2) who the test is suitable for, (3) possible actions in response to the test and (4) caveats and limitations of the test. Eight specific statements about the utility of the test were identified, many of which are not evidence-based. While some websites were transparent regarding the test's limitations, others mentioned no caveats or included persuasive statements actively promoting the test as empowering for a range of women in different circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS

Several websites had statements about the utility of the AMH test that are not supported by the evidence. This highlights the need for higher standards for information provided on fertility clinic websites to prevent women being misled to believe the test can reliably predict their fertility.

VALUE study: a protocol for a qualitative semi-structured interview study of IVF add-ons use by patients, clinicians and embryologists in the UK and Australia

INTRODUCTION

For couples undergoing assisted reproduction, a plethora of adjuncts are available; these are known as 'add-ons'. Most add-ons are not supported by good quality randomised trial evidence of efficacy, with some proven to be ineffective. However, estimates suggest that over 70% of fertility clinics provide at least one add-on, often at extra cost to the patient. This study has three aims. First, to undertake a survey of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) clinics in the UK to ascertain which add-ons are being offered and at what cost. Second, to undertake qualitative semi-structured interviews of patients, clinicians and embryologists, to explore their opinions and beliefs surrounding add-ons. Third, to review the interpretation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority traffic light system, to better understand the information required by IVF patients, clinicians and embryologists when making decisions about add-ons.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

All UK IVF clinics will be contacted by email and invited to complete an online survey. The survey will ask them which add-ons they offer, at what cost per cycle and how information is shared with patients. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted in the UK and Australia with three groups of participants: (i) fertility patients; (ii) clinicians and (iii) embryologists. Participants for the interviews will be recruited via social media channels, website adverts, email and snowball sampling. Up to 20 participants will be recruited for each group in each country. Following an online consent process, interviews will be conducted via video-conferencing software, transcribed verbatim and data subjected to inductive thematic analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the Universities of Sheffield, Bath Spa and Melbourne. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated to regulatory bodies in the UK and Australia. A lay summary of findings will be shared via Fertility Network, UK.

A core outcome set for genitourinary symptoms associated with menopause: the COMMA (Core Outcomes in Menopause) global initiative

OBJECTIVE

Genitourinary symptoms, such as vaginal dryness and pain with sex, are commonly experienced by postmenopausal women. Comparing treatments for these genitourinary symptoms are restricted by the use of different outcome measures in clinical trials and the omission of outcomes, which may be relevant to women. The aim of this project was to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) to be reported in clinical trials of treatments for genitourinary symptoms associated with menopause.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of treatments for genitourinary symptoms associated with menopause and extracted their outcomes. This list was refined and entered into a two-round modified Delphi survey, which was open to clinicians, researchers, and postmenopausal women from November 2019 to March 2020. Outcomes were scored on a nine-point scale from "not important" to "critically important." The final COS was determined following two international consensus meetings.

RESULTS

A total of 26 unique outcomes were included in the Delphi process, which was completed by 227 participants of whom 58% were postmenopausal women, 34% clinicians, and 8% researchers. Predefined thresholds were applied to the Delphi scores to categorize outcomes by importance, which informed the e consensus meetings, attended by 43 participants from 21 countries. The final COS includes eight outcomes: (1) pain with sex, (2) vulvovaginal dryness, (3) vulvovaginal discomfort or irritation, (4) discomfort or pain when urinating, (5) change in most bothersome symptom, (6) distress, bother or interference of genitourinary symptoms, (7) satisfaction with treatment, (8) side effects of treatment.

CONCLUSION

These eight core outcomes reflect the joint priorities of postmenopausal women, clinicians, and researchers internationally. Standardized collection and reporting of these outcomes in clinical trials will facilitate the comparison of different treatments for genitourinary symptoms, advance clinical practice, and ultimately improve outcomes for symptomatic women.

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.

A core outcome set for vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause: the COMMA (Core Outcomes in Menopause) global initiative

OBJECTIVE

Vasomotor symptoms (VMS) (hot flashes and night sweats) affect most women over the menopause transition. Comparing the safety and effectiveness of treatments for vasomotor symptoms is limited by the use of inconsistent outcome measures, and uncertainty as to which outcomes are most important to symptomatic women. To address this, we have developed a Core Outcome Set (COS) for use in clinical trials of treatments for VMS.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the primary outcomes measured in randomized controlled trials of treatments for VMS. These were refined and entered into a two-round modified Delphi survey completed by clinicians, researchers, and postmenopausal women between November 2019 and March 2020. Outcomes were scored on a nine-point scale from "not important" to "critically important." Two international consensus meetings were held to finalize the COS.

RESULTS

Based on the systematic review, 13 separate outcomes were included in the Delphi process. This was completed by 227 participants of whom 58% were postmenopausal women, 34% clinicians, and 8% researchers. Predefined thresholds were applied to categorize importance scores obtained during Round 2 of the Delphi survey. These informed discussions at the consensus meetings which were attended by 56 participants from 28 countries. The final COS includes six outcomes: 1) frequency of VMS, 2) severity of VMS, 3) distress, bother or interference caused by VMS, 4) impact on sleep, 5) satisfaction with treatment, and 6) side-effects of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of this COS will: better enable research studies to accurately reflect the joint priorities of postmenopausal women, clinicians and researchers, standardize outcome reporting, and facilitate combining and comparing results from different studies, and ultimately improve outcomes for women with bothersome VMS.

IVF add-ons in Australia and New Zealand: A systematic assessment of IVF clinic websites

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) 'add-ons' are extra (non-essential) procedures, techniques or medicines, which usually claim to increase the chance of a successful IVF outcome. Use of IVF add-ons is believed to be widespread in many settings; however, information about add-on availability in Australasia is lacking.

AIMS

To understand which add-ons are advertised on Australasian IVF clinic websites, and what is the evidence for their benefit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic assessment of website content was undertaken between December 2019-April 2020, capturing IVF add-ons advertised, including costs, claims of benefit, statements of risk or limitations, and evidence of effectiveness for improving live birth and pregnancy. A literature review assessed the strength and quality of evidence for each add-on.

RESULTS

Of the 40 included IVF clinics websites, 31 (78%) listed one or more IVF add-ons. A total of 21 different add-ons or add-on groups were identified, the most common being preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (offered by 63% of clinics), time-lapse systems (33%) and assisted hatching (28%). In most cases (77%), descriptions of the IVF add-ons were accompanied by claims of benefit. Most claims (90%) were not quantified and very few referenced scientific publications to support the claims (9.8%). None of the add-ons were supported by high-quality evidence of benefit for pregnancy or live birth rates. The cost of IVF add-ons varied from $0 to $3700 (AUD/NZD).

CONCLUSIONS

There is widespread advertising of add-ons on IVF clinic websites, which report benefits for add-ons that are not supported by high-quality evidence.

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.

Protocol for development of a core outcome set for menopausal symptoms (COMMA)

OBJECTIVE

Menopause is the natural cessation of menstruation and may be accompanied by troublesome symptoms including hot flushes and night sweats (vasomotor symptoms) and genitourinary symptoms. Randomized trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of interventions for these symptoms have reported a wide range of outcomes and used inconsistent measures. This variation precludes comparing and combining data from different trials. To overcome this limitation, we will develop a Core Outcome Set for Menopausal Symptoms.

METHODS

We will systematically review the literature to identify the outcomes reported in the interventional trials for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms. This list will be entered into a two-round modified Delphi survey to be completed by clinicians, researchers, and consumers (women who have experienced menopause). Participants will score outcomes on a nine-point scale from "not important" to "critically important." Representatives from each stakeholder group will then meet to discuss the results and finalize the Core Outcome Set. Ethics approval was not required as this was considered service evaluation and development. The study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/917).

RESULTS

An agreed upon set of minimum outcomes and outcome measures will facilitate combining and comparing findings from future trials of treatments for menopausal symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

This Core Outcome Set will better enable women and clinicians to select effective treatments, improve the quality of trial reporting, reduce research wastage, and improve care for women with troublesome menopausal symptoms. VIDEO SUMMARY:: http://links.lww.com/MENO/A633.

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.

IVF and IUI in couples with unexplained infertility (FIIX study): study protocol of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTIONS

In couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis of natural conception, are four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) non-inferior to one completed cycle of IVF for the outcome of cumulative live birth? Are four cycles of IUI-OS associated with a lower cost per live birth compared to one completed cycle of IVF? Will four cycles of IUI-OS followed by one complete cycle of IVF result in as many live births at lower cost per live birth, than two complete cycles of IVF? Will four cycles of IUI-OS followed by two complete cycles of IVF result in more live births at lower cost per live birth, than two complete cycles of IVF alone?

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

IUI is widely used in the USA, the UK and Europe as a low cost, less invasive alternative to IVF for couples with unexplained infertility. Although three to six cycles of IUI were comparable to IVF in the three major studies carried out to date, gonadotrophin ovarian stimulation was used in the majority of cases, and this also resulted in a high multiple pregnancy rate in some studies. Ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate is known to have lower multiple pregnancy rates.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The FIIX study is a multicentre, open label, parallel, pragmatic non-inferiority randomized controlled trial of 580 couples with unexplained infertility comparing four cycles of IUI-OS with clomiphene citrate and one completed cycle of IVF. Variable block randomization stratified by age and clinic with electronic allocation will be used.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Couples with poor prognosis for natural conception and who are eligible for publicly funded fertility treatment in six fertility clinics in New Zealand.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Auckland Medical Research Fund (3718892/1119003), A+ Trust, Auckland District Health Board (A + 8479), Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust (3718514). No competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12619001003167.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

15 July 2019

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

02/08/2019

Strategies to reduce multiple pregnancies during medically assisted reproduction

Multiple birth rates after fertility treatment are still high in many countries. Multiple births are associated with increased rates of preterm birth and low birth weight babies, in turn increasing the risk of severe morbidity for the children. The multiple birth rates vary in different countries between 2% and 3% and up to 30% in some settings. Elective single-embryo transfer, particularly in combination with frozen-embryo transfer and milder stimulation in ovulation induction/intrauterine insemination, to avoid multifollicular development is an effective strategy to decrease the multiple birth rates while still achieving acceptable live-birth rates. Although this procedure is used successfully in many countries, it ought to be implemented broadly to improve the health of the children. One at a time should be the normal routine.

Are interventions in reproductive medicine assessed for plausible and clinically relevant effects? A systematic review of power and precision in trials and meta-analyses

STUDY QUESTION

How much statistical power do randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have to investigate the effectiveness of interventions in reproductive medicine?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The largest trials in reproductive medicine are unlikely to detect plausible improvements in live birth rate (LBR), and meta-analyses do not make up for this shortcoming.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Effectiveness of interventions is best evaluated using RCTs. In order to be informative, these trials should be designed to have sufficient power to detect the smallest clinically relevant effect. Similar trials can subsequently be pooled in meta-analyses to more precisely estimate treatment effects.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A review of power and precision in 199 RCTs and meta-analyses from 107 Cochrane Reviews was conducted.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Systematic reviews published by Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility with the primary outcome live birth were identified. For each live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) meta-analysis and for the largest RCT in each, we calculated the power to detect absolute improvements in LBR of varying sizes. Additionally, the 95% CIs of estimated treatment effects from each meta-analysis and RCT were recorded, as these indicate the precision of the result.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Median (interquartile range) power to detect an improvement in LBR of 5 percentage points (pp) (e.g. 25-30%) was 13% (8-21%) for RCTs and 16% (9-33%) for meta-analyses. No RCTs and only 2% of meta-analyses achieved 80% power to detect an improvement of 5 pp. Median power was high (85% for trials and 93% for meta-analyses) only in relation to 20 pp absolute LBR improvement, although substantial numbers of trials and meta-analyses did not achieve 80% power even for this improbably large effect size. Median width of 95% CIs was 25 pp and 21 pp for RCTs and meta-analyses, respectively. We found that 28% of Cochrane Reviews with LBR as the primary outcome contain no live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) data.

LARGE-SCALE DATA

The data used in this study may be accessed at https://osf.io/852tn/?view_only=90f1579ce72747ccbe572992573197bd.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The design and analysis decisions used in this study are predicted to overestimate the power of trials and meta-analyses, and the size of the problem is therefore likely understated. For some interventions, it is possible that larger trials not reporting live birth or ongoing pregnancy have been conducted, which were not included in our sample. In relation to meta-analyses, we calculated power as though all participants were included in a single trial. This ignores heterogeneity between trials in a meta-analysis, and will cause us to overestimate power.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Trials capable of detecting realistic improvements in LBR are lacking in reproductive medicine, and meta-analyses are not large enough to overcome this deficiency. This situation will lead to unwarranted pessimism as well as unjustified enthusiasm regarding reproductive interventions, neither of which are consistent with the practice of evidence-based medicine or the idea of informed patient choice. However, RCTs and meta-analyses remain vital to establish the effectiveness of fertility interventions. We discuss strategies to improve the evidence base and call for collaborative studies focusing on the most important research questions.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

There was no specific funding for this study. KS and SL declare no conflict of interest. AV consults for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA): all fees are paid directly to AV's employer. JW declares that publishing research benefits his career. SR is a Statistical Editor for Human Reproduction. JW and AV are Statistical Editors for Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility. DRB is funded by the NHS as Scientific Director of a clinical IVF service.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

None.

In vitro fertilization add-ons for the endometrium: it doesn't add-up

The probability of live birth from an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle is modest. Many additional treatments (add-ons) are available which promise to improve the success of IVF. This review summarizes the current evidence for common IVF add-ons which are suggested to improve endometrial receptivity. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and individual trials were included. Five add-ons were included: immune therapies, endometrial scratching, endometrial receptivity array, uterine artery vasodilation, and human chorionic gonadotropin instillation. The results suggest there is no robust evidence that these add-ons are effective or safe. Many IVF add-ons are costly, consuming precious resources which may be better spent on evidence-based treatments or further IVF. Large randomized controlled trials and appropriate safety assessment should be mandatory before the introduction of IVF add-ons into routine practice.

Access to routinely collected health data for clinical trials - review of successful data requests to UK registries

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials generally each collect their own data despite routinely collected health data (RCHD) increasing in quality and breadth. Our aim is to quantify UK-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) accessing RCHD for participant data, characterise how these data are used and thereby recommend how more trials could use RCHD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of RCTs accessing RCHD from at least one registry in the UK between 2013 and 2018 for the purposes of informing or supplementing participant data. A list of all registries holding RCHD in the UK was compiled. In cases where registries published release registers, these were searched for RCTs accessing RCHD. Where no release register was available, registries were contacted to request a list of RCTs. For each identified RCT, information was collected from all publicly available sources (release registers, websites, protocol etc.). The search and data extraction were undertaken between January and May 2019.

RESULTS

We identified 160 RCTs accessing RCHD between 2013 and 2018 from a total of 22 registries; this corresponds to only a very small proportion of all UK RCTs (about 3%). RCTs accessing RCHD were generally large (median sample size 1590), commonly evaluating treatments for cancer or cardiovascular disease. Most of the included RCTs accessed RCHD from NHS Digital (68%), and the most frequently accessed datasets were mortality (76%) and hospital visits (55%). RCHD was used to inform the primary trial (82%) and long-term follow-up (57%). There was substantial variation in how RCTs used RCHD to inform participant outcome measures. A limitation was the lack of information and transparency from registries and RCTs with respect to which datasets have been accessed and for what purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

In the last five years, only a small minority of UK-based RCTs have accessed RCHD to inform participant data. We ask for improved accessibility, confirmed data quality and joined-up thinking between the registries and the regulatory authorities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019123088.

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.

Monitoring in practice - How are UK academic clinical trials monitored? A survey

Background

Despite the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) encouraging the use of risk-based monitoring for trials in 2013, there remains a lack of evidence-based guidelines on how to monitor. We surveyed the academic United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered clinical trials units (CTUs) to find out their policy on monitoring of phase III randomised clinical trials of an investigational medicinal product (CTIMPs).

Methods

An online survey of monitoring policy with sections on the CTU, central monitoring and on-site monitoring was sent to all 50 UKCRC registered CTUs in November 2018.

Descriptive data analysis and tabulations are reported using the total number answering each question.

Results

A total of 43/50 (86%) of CTUs responded with 38 conducting phase III randomised CTIMP trials. Of these 38 CTUs, 34 finished the survey. Most CTUs (36/37, 97%) use a central monitoring process to guide, target or supplement site visits. More than half (19/36, 53%) of CTUs do not use an automated monitoring report when centrally monitoring trials and all units use trial team knowledge to make a final decision on whether an on-site visit is required.

A total of 31/34 (91%) CTUs used triggers to decide whether or not to conduct an on-site monitoring visit. On-site, a mixture of source data verification and checking of processes was carried out.

The CTUs overwhelmingly (27/34, 79%) selected optimising central monitoring as their most pressing concern.

Conclusion

The survey showed a wide variation in phase III randomised CTIMP trial monitoring practices by academic clinical trials units within a single research-active country. We urgently need to develop evidence-based regulator-agreed guidance for CTUs on best practice for both central and on-site monitoring and to develop tools for all CTUs to use.

Randomised controlled trials evaluating endometrial scratching: assessment of methodological issues

STUDY QUESTION

Do randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial scratching suffer from methodological issues including insufficient trial registration, statistical errors or irreproducibility, randomisation errors or miscellaneous issues?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The majority of RCTs investigating endometrial scratching have methodological issues.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A large number of small RCTs investigating the effectiveness of endometrial scratching prior to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intrauterine insemination (IUI)/intercourse have reported favourable findings. Subsequently, systematic reviews incorporating these RCTs yielded meta-analyses in favour of endometrial scratching. Endometrial scratching has been widely adopted by infertility specialists around the world. Recently, an international RCT including 1364 women reported no benefit from endometrial scratching before IVF.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We evaluated several methodological issues of RCTs investigating the effectiveness of endometrial scratching prior to IVF and IUI/intercourse. We identified 25 RCTs for IVF and 12 RCTs for IUI/intercourse with full-text publication.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We assessed the RCTs on the following criteria: adequacy of trial registration, statistical issues (description of statistical methods and reproducibility of univariable statistical analysis), excessive similarity or difference in baseline characteristics that is not compatible with chance (Monte Carlo simulations and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) and miscellaneous methodological issues.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Of 25 RCTs evaluating endometrial scratching prior to IVF, only eight (32%) had adequate trial registration. In total, 10 (40%) RCTs had issues regarding statistical methods. Nine (69%, 13 applicable) RCTs had at least one inconsistency between reported and reproduced univariable statistical analysis for categorical baseline/intermediate characteristics. Statistical results of at least one outcome were not reproducible in 14 (74%, 19 applicable) RCTs. Only two (8%) RCTs had none of the above issues. Suggested by the simulations, these RCTs did not significantly violate the null hypothesis that the baseline characteristics were the results of a properly conducted randomisation process (P = 0.4395).

Of 12 IUI/intercourse RCTs, only 2 (17%) had adequate trial registration. In total, five (42%) studies had issues of statistical methods. Inconsistency between reported and reproduced univariable analysis for baseline/intermediate categorical variable(s) was found in four (57%, 7 applicable) RCTs. Statistical analysis was not reproducible for at least one outcome in eight (80%, 10 applicable) studies. All RCTs had at least one of the above issues. These RCTs were inconsistent with the null hypothesis that their baseline characteristics were the results of proper randomised allocation (P = 1.659*10−7).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We were unable to assess RCTs which were not published as full-text papers. We could not analyse individual participant data to investigate possible reasons for statistical inconsistencies. The method to infer the likelihood of proper random sampling rests on assumptions including independent baseline characteristics, simple randomisation and no publication bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The methodological issues common to RCTs evaluating endometrial scratching may have biased the results of the trials. Further development and validation of these novel methods may be helpful for the critical appraisal of RCTs.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was sought to support this work. B.W.M. is supported by a National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. D.W. is supported by a grant from the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Austria (PMU Research Fund—PMU FFF Number: L-18/02/006-WET) and by Drs Haackert Foundation, Germany. S.L. is an author of a trial included in this study, an author of an included systematic review and a Cochrane editor. All other authors have no conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A