Statistical flaws in design and analysis of fertility treatment studies on cryopreservation raise doubts on the conclusions

Human Reproduction

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 1988, Pages 273-280

  Van Gelder, P H A J M ^a   Nijs, M ^b  

^a PSCT BV   (Netherlands)

^b Stichting Geertgen   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

cryopreservation; methodological study requirements; Statistics in infertility studies; subfertility

Indexed keywords

CALCULATION; CRYOPRESERVATION; ERROR; FERTILITY; HUMAN; MEDICINE; META ANALYSIS; PATIENT SELECTION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

EID: 84983168913     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Arce JC, Nyboe Andersen A, Collins J. Resolving methodological and clinical issues in the design of efficacy trials in assisted reproductive technologies: A mini-review. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1757-71.
2. Armitage P, McPherson CK, Rowe BC. Repeated significance tests on accumulating data. J Royal Stat Soc A. 1969;132: 235-44.
3. Barlow DH. The design, publication and interpretation of research in Sub fertility Medicine: uncomfortable issues and challenges to be faced, Hum Reprod. 2003;18:899-901.
4. Bland M. An Introduction to Medical Statistics, Oxford University Press. 2000.
5. Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections of Health Services, Oxford University Press. 1999.
6. Daya S. Methodological issues in infertility research. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obst Gyn. 2006;20(6):779-97.
7. Dickey RP. Clinical as well as statistical knowledge is needed when determining how subfertility trials are analysed. Hum Reprod. 2003;18,2495-8.
8. El-Toukhy T, Taylor A, Khalaf Y et al. Pituitary suppression in ultrasound-monitored frozen embryo replacement cycles. A randomised study. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:874-9.
9. Francsovits P, Tothne A, Murber A et al. Use of human derived FSH versus recombinant FSH results in more embryos suitable for cryopreservation. P-030, Proceedings of the 15th World Congress on IVF, International Society for in Vitro Fertilization, 2009.
10. Gelbaya TA, Nardo LG, Hunter HR et al. Cryopreserved-Thawed embryo transfer in natural or down-regulated hormonallycontrolled cycles: A retrospective study. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85:603-9.
11. Kahn JA, Sunde A, von During V et al. A prospective randomized comparative cohort study of either recombinant FSH (Puregon) or urinary FSH (Metrodin) in in vitro fertilization treatment. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2009;4:206-14.
12. McEntegart D.J. The Pursuit of Balance Using Stratified and Dynamic Randomization Techniques: An Overview. Drug Infor J. 2003;37:293-308.
13. Oehninger S, Mayer J, Muasher S. Impact of different clinical variables on pregnancy outcome following embryo cryopreservation. Molec Cell Endo. 2000;169:73-7.
14. Out HJ, Mannaerts BM, Driessen SG et al. A prospective, randomized, assessor-blind, multicentre study comparing recombinant and urinary follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon versus Metrodin) in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1995;10,2534-40.
15. Prades M, Golmard JL, Vauthier D et al. Can cumulative pregnancy rates be increased by freezing and thawing single embryos? Fertil Steril. 2009;91:395-400.
16. Daya S. Pitfalls in the design and analysis of efficacy trials in subfertility. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1005-9.
17. Salumets A, Suikkari AM, Mäkinen S et al. Frozen embryo transfers: implications of clinical and embryological factors on the pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2368-74.
18. Seelig AS, Al-Hasani S, Katalinic A et al. Comparison of cryopreservation outcome with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists or antagonists in the collecting cycle. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:472-5.
19. Senn S. Cross-over trials in clinical research. Wiley and Sons. 1993.
20. Sidak Z. Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. J Amer Stat Assoc. 1967; 62:626-33.
21. Templeton A, Morris JK, Parslow W. Factors that affect outcome of in-vitro fertilisation treatment. Lancet. 1996;348:1402-6.
22. Vail A, Gardener E. Common statistical errors in the design and analysis of subfertility trials. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1000-4.
23. van Walraven C, Mahon JL, Moher D et al. Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: implications for sample-size calculation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52:717-23.
24. Wang JX, Yap YY, Mathews CD. Frozen-Thawed embryo transfer: influence of clinical factors on implantation rate and risk of multiple conception. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2316-9.
25. Ziebe S, Lundin K, Janssens R et al., Influence of ovarian stimulation with HP-hMG or recombinant FSH on embryo quality parameters in patients undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2404-13.
26. Zhang HQ, Zhao HX, Gu DY et al. Effect of Traditional Chinese Herbs Combined with Low Dose Human Menopausal Gonadotropin Applied in Frozen thawed EmbryoTransfer. Chin J Integr Med. 2006;12:244-9.