No common denominator: A review of outcome measures in IVF RCTs

Human Reproduction

Volumn 31, Issue 12, 2016, Pages 2714-2722

  Wilkinson, Jack ^a,b   Roberts, Stephen A ^a   Showell, Marian ^c   Brison, Daniel R ^d   Vail, Andy ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b SALFORD ROYAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^d MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Assisted reproduction; Core outcomes; CROWN; IMPRINT; Infertility trial; IVF; Live birth; Ongoing pregnancy; Outcome measures; Reporting guidelines

Indexed keywords

ESTRADIOL; PROGESTERONE;

ADVERSE OUTCOME; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL OUTCOME; ECTOPIC PREGNANCY; ENDOMETRIAL THICKNESS; ESTRADIOL BLOOD LEVEL; HUMAN; IN VITRO FERTILIZATION; LIVE BIRTH; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; OOCYTE RETRIEVAL; OVARY HYPERSTIMULATION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PROGESTERONE BLOOD LEVEL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; BIRTH RATE; FEMALE; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY RATE; PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIRTH RATE; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMANS; LIVE BIRTH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85014475477     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew227     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Abdalla HI, Bhattacharya S, Khalaf Y. Is meaningful reporting of national IVF outcome data possible? Hum Reprod 2010;25:9-13.
2. Blazeby J, Altman DG, Clarke M, Gargon EA, Williamson PR. Core outcome sets and the COMET (core outcome measures in effectiveness trials) initiative; improving the efficiency and value of the research process. Qual Life Res 2012;21:19-20.
3. Braakhekke M, Kamphuis EI, Dancet EA, Mol F, van der Veen F, Mol BW. Ongoing pregnancy qualifies best as the primary outcome measure of choice in trials in reproductive medicine: An opinion paper. Fertil Steril 2014a;101:1203-1204.
4. Braakhekke M, Kamphuis EI, Van Rumste MM, Mol F, Van Der Veen F, Mol BW. How are neonatal and maternal outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in reproductive medicine? Hum Reprod 2014b; 29:1211-1217.
5. Chan AW, Krleza-Jeric K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 2004;171:735-740.
6. Clarke M, Williamson PR. Core outcome sets and systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016;5:11.
7. Dapuzzo L, Seitz FE, Dodson WC, Stetter C, Kunselman AR, Legro RS. Incomplete and inconsistent reporting of maternal and fetal outcomes in infertility treatment trials. Fertil Steril 2011;95:2527-2530.
8. Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A, Broekmans F, Dilaver N, Fanchin R, Griesinger G, Kelsey TW, La Marca A, Lambalk C et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Mullerian hormone in women (vol 20, pg 370, 2014). Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:804-804.
9. Garrido N, Bellver J, Remohi J, Simon C, Pellicer A. Cumulative live-birth rates per total number of embryos needed to reach newborn in consecutive in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles: A new approach to measuring the likelihood of IVF success. Fertil Steril 2011;96:40-46.
10. Germond M, Urner F, Chanson A, Primi M-P, Wirthner D, Senn A. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The cumulated singleton/twin delivery rates per oocyte pick-up: The CUSIDERA and CUTWIDERA. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2442-2444.
11. Griesinger G. Beware of the implantation rate! Why the outcome parameter implantation rate should be abandoned from infertility research. Hum Reprod 2016;31:249-251.
12. Heijnen E, Macklon NS, Fauser B. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The next step to improving outcomes of IVF: consider the whole treatment. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1936-1938.
13. Hirji KF, Fagerland MW. Outcome based subgroup analysis: A neglected concern. Trials 2009;10:1.
14. Khan K. The CROWN Initiative: journal editors invite researchers to develop core outcomes in womens health. BJOG 2014;121:1181-1182.
15. La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:124-140.
16. Legro RS, Wu X, Scientific C, Barnhart KT, Farquhar C, Fauser BC, Mol B. Improving the reporting of clinical trials of infertility treatments (IMPRINT): modifying the CONSORT statement. Hum Reprod 2014;29:2075-2082.
17. Mastenbroek S, Bossuyt PMM, Heineman MJ, Repping S, van der Veen F. Comment 1 on Staessen et al. (2004). Design and analysis of a randomized controlled trial studying preimplantation genetic screening. Hum Reprod 2005;20:2362-2363.
18. Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1846-1850.
19. Min JK, Breheny SA, MacLachlan V, Healy DL. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The singleton, term gestation, live birth rate per cycle initiated: The BESST endpoint for assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2004;19:3-7.
20. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Intention-To-Treat principle. CMAJ 2001;165: 1339-1341.
21. Nelson SM. Biomarkers of ovarian response: current and future applications. Fertil Steril 2013;99:963-969.
22. Vail A, Gardener E. Common statistical errors in the design and analysis of subfertility trials. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1000-1004.
23. Van Voorhis BJ. Clinical practice. In vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:379-386.
24. Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, Tyroler HA. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical-Trials. JAMA 1991;266:93-98.