Search

Background: Varicocele repair is a widely used treatment for subfertility. Our aim was to identify and combine the results from randomised controlled trials published to ascertain whether the pregnancy rates after varicocele repair are higher than those with no treatment.Methods: We did a systematic review of seven studies identified by searching Medline and a register of controlled trials. We also searched the contents of specialist journals and the annual meeting programmes of relevant societies by hand. Inclusion criteria were treatment of varicocele in subfertile couples, random allocation to treatment and control groups, and pregnancy or livebirth rates as an outcome measure. We pooled data by use of fixed and random effects models.Findings: None of seven eligible studies published between 1979 and 2002 described a strategy for concealment of the allocation sequence. There were 61 pregnancies among 281 treated couples and 50 pregnancies among 259 controls. The overall relative benefit of treatment was 1.01 (95% CI 0.73-1.40) by the fixed effects model and 1.04 (0.62-1.75) by the random effects model. The overall risk difference was 0.2% (-7 to 7) and 3% (-7 to 14), respectively. In subgroup analyses, varicocele treatment was not effective in trials restricted to male subfertility with clinical varicocele, or in those that included men with subclinical varicocele or normal semen analysis. However, this systematic review, done with a meta-analytical method, might have had insufficient power to detect small effects because of the small number of patients in some subgroups.Interpretation: Varicocele repair does not seem to be an effective treatment for male or unexplained subfertility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We have investigated the adhesion of endometrial tissue isolated from antegradely shed menstrual effluent to amnion and peritoneum. This endometrial tissue was cultured overnight on either side of intact and stripped amnion and on the mesothelial side of peritoneum. Light and electron microscopy were applied to evaluate adhesion. With light microscopy adhesion of endometrial fragments to stripped membranes was observed in nine out of 12 specimens and in 12 out of 13 specimens when layered on the extracellular matrix side of amnion. Adhesion when layered on the epithelial side was seen in only four out of 13 specimens. However, when using scanning electron microscopy adhesion of menstrual endometrial tissue could be visualized in all samples. Numerous adhering fragments were seen when layered on the extracellular matrix side of untreated amnion. On several occasions not only adhesion but also spreading of cells was observed. When layered on the epithelial side of untreated amnion or peritoneum, adhesion was exclusively seen at locations where the epithelium was damaged or absent. These findings were confirmed by transmission electron microscopy. These observations indicate that endometrial tissue isolated from antegradely shed menstrual effluent preferentially adheres to sub-epithelial structures of amnion and peritoneum. The lack of adhesion to epithelial cells suggests that an intact mesothelial lining prevents adhesion of menstrual endometrial tissue. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

OBJECTIVES: In multiple-choice tests using a 'don't-know' option the number of correct minus incorrect answers was used as the test score (formula scoring) in order to reduce the measurement error resulting from random guessing. In the literature diverging results are reported when comparing formula scoring and number-right scoring, the scoring method without the don't-know option. DESIGN: To investigate which method was most appropriate, both scoring methods were used in true-false tests (block tests) taken at the end of a second- and third-year educational module (block). The students were asked to answer each item initially by choosing from the response options true, false or don't know, and secondly to replace all don't-know answers by a true-false answer. SETTING: Maastricht University, The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: Medical students. RESULTS: The correct scores for the don't-know answered items were found to be 4.5% and 5.9%, respectively, higher than expected with pure random guesswork. This represents a source of bias with formula scoring, because students who were less willing to guess obtained lower scores. The average difference in the correct minus incorrect score for the two scoring methods (2.5%, P < 0.001, and 3.4%, P < 0. 001, respectively) indicates the size of the bias (compare: the standard deviation of the score equals 11%). Test reliability was higher with formula scoring (0.72 vs. 0.66 and 0.74 vs. 0.66), but the difference decreased when the test was restricted to items which were close to the core content of the block (0.81 vs. 0.77, resp. 0. 75 vs. 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: In deciding what scoring method to use, less bias (number-right scoring) has to be weighed against higher reliability (formula scoring). Apart from these psychometric reasons educational factors must be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this prospective randomized study on 1380 consecutive in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments, the results were compared of culture of human oocytes and embryos for the first 2 or 3 days of development in microdroplets of medium under oil using a gas phase containing either atmospheric ( 20%) or reduced (5%) O2 concentrations. No significant differences were found between the two groups cultured under either 5% or 20% O2 in rates of fertilization (60 versus 61%, respectively), embryo development at day 2 or 3, pregnancy (26.6 versus 25.4%, respectively), and implantation (13.4 versus 14.0%, respectively). Culture of surplus embryos under 5% O2 resulted in a significantly higher mean incidence of blastocyst formation per cycle as compared to the 20% O2 group (25.8 ± 2.0 versus 20.4 ± 1.9, respectively). The mean number of cells of embryos classified as blastocysts by microscopic observation of a blastocoel was significantly higher in the 5% O2 group as compared to the 20% O2 group, both in blastocysts fixed on day 5 (39.8 ± 1.7 versus 31.9 ± 1.9, respectively), as well as those fixed on day 6 (45.6 ± 2.6 versus 33.7 ± 3.4, respectively). This difference was due to the fact that significantly more blastocysts of the 20% O2 group had an abnormal low cell number of < 25 as compared to the 5% O2 group, both in blastocysts fixed on day 5 (39 versus 22%, respectively), as well as those fixed on day 6 (43 versus 22%, respectively). To conclude, although culture under 5% O2 leads to slightly improved preimplantation embryonic viability, this effect is either too marginal to result in higher pregnancy rates, or low O2 concentrations exert an effect during the later stages of preimplantation development only. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this study, the use of Ca2+/Mg2+-free medium for biopsy of human embryos at the 4- to 10-cell stage on the third day of development was evaluated. When compared with control medium containing normal concentrations of Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions, the use of Ca2+/Mg2+-free medium allows an easier removal of blastomeres as illustrated by a lower rate of cell lysis as well as a shorter time needed to perform the procedure. Subsequent embryo development to the blastocyst stage is not affected by the choice of biopsy medium, not even when embryos are exposed to the medium for 45 min. The use of Ca2+/Mg2+-free medium thus allows for an easier biopsy procedure during preimplantation genetic diagnosis, while it does not result in a loss of developmental potential of the embryo to the blastocyst stage. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

One of the first steps in the pathogenesis of endometriosis is the attachment of the endometrium to the peritoneal lining. Since the peritoneum is extremely fragile and hard to obtain, amnion has been used as an in-vitro model to study adhesion. Scanning and transmission electron microscopy was applied to evaluate the adhesion of endometrial cells isolated in the proliferative and secretory phases of the menstrual cycle. Endometrial fragments obtained in either phase of the cycle were able to adhere to the extracellular matrix of the amnion. Fragments from proliferative phase endometrium showed active spreading and growth over the matrix surface, whereas fragments from secretory phase endometrium did not. Fragments from proliferative as well as secretory phase endometrium were able to adhere to the epithelial side of the amnion, but only at locations where the amniotic epithelium was damaged or partly absent. These observations indicate that the basement membrane and extracellular matrix provide a suitable substrate for endometrial cell attachment and growth and that endometrial cell adhesion occurs preferentially to subepithelial structures, whereas an intact epithelium prevents the adhesion of endometrial fragments to the amnion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Screening for tubal factor subfertility by means of Chlamydia antibody testing (CAT) was introduced into the initial work-up of subfertile couples several years ago. The results reported, however, are heterogeneous, and no uniformity exists in cut-off levels of titres, or in definitions of tubal factor subfertility. We performed a prospective cohort study to evaluate the implications of varying the definitions of tubal pathology and of modifying the cut-off levels on the clinical impact of CAT in predicting tubal factor subfertility. In 227 consecutive patients who attended our fertility clinic, the Chlamydia IgG antibody titre was determined and related to tuboperitoneal abnormalities at laparoscopy as a reference standard. According to received operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, a titre of 16 is the optimum cut-off level. Increasing the cut-off level improves specificity and positive likelihood ratio (LR+), at the expense of sensitivity and negative LR (LR-). Changing the definition of tubal factor subfertility from unspecified tuboperitoneal abnormalities into extensive adhesions and/or bilateral distal tubal occlusion improves LR+, LR- and kappa significantly. We conclude that CAT is more accurate in predicting severe distal tubal pathology than unspecified tuboperitoneal abnormalities. Although from a statistical point of view a titre of 16 is the optimum cut-off level, from a clinical point of view 32 or 64 may be preferable, depending on the aim of screening and the inception cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: Do embryo culture media used during an IVF/ICSI treatment have an effect on cognitive development of singleton IVF children at 9 years of age?, Summary Answer: Cognitive development of children born after culture in two different embryo culture media is comparable., What Is Known Already: Previously, we have shown that the culture medium used in an IVF/ICSI treatment affects birthweight and weight at 2 years of age after alternating assignment to embryo culture in either K-SCICM (Cook) or G1™ Version 3 (Vitrolife). Children with low birthweight are known to have an increased risk for learning disabilities. Data on cognitive development in general of children born after ART are still conflicting, and the only study reporting on the effects of culture medium on cognitive development shows significant differences in cognitive development between two culture medium groups., Study Design Size Duration: In this observational cohort follow-up study (MEDIUM-KIDS), parents of all singletons from our abovementioned study were approached after the ninth birthday of their child to participate in an additional follow-up study. Of the 294 eligible children included in the original study, 119 children (70 Vitrolife and 49 Cook) participated in the current study., Participants/materials Setting Methods: All follow-up measurements were performed between March 2014 and December 2016. CITO (Dutch Central Institute for Test Development) developed the Dutch pupil monitoring system, which involves nationwide independent, standardized, academic achievement score tests to monitor the child's school performance twice a year at fixed time points from third grade onward. The tests include language skills (vocabulary and orthography), mathematics and reading capability and comprehension. Results from the tests performed between third and sixth grades, expressed as ability scores, were obtained from the school. To investigate school performance development over the years, we used a mixed effects multilevel model. The least complex model with the best fit was selected to analyze whether culture medium affects cognitive development in our cohort. The study had enough power to detect a difference in ability score that reflects at least one performance category between the two groups., Main Results and the Role of Chance: No differences were seen in baseline characteristics between participants and non-participants (both parental and children characteristics). For all domains, the random intercept model was used. All analyses showed comparable results for the two culture medium groups. No significant differences were observed for any of the cognitive development domains, even after correction for potential confounders. Parental level of education was higher in the IVF group (45%) if compared to the national average level of education (35%), which most likely explains the higher CITO scores for the IVF children if compared to the National ability scores., Limitations Reasons for Caution: A limitation of the study was its pseudo-randomized design and the relatively low participation rate of 40.5%. This and the number of missing data prevent us from drawing robust causal conclusions. However, as this is the first and therewith oldest cohort of children where culture medium was allocated alternatingly and used in a blinded setting, in the same period, with all other conditions identical this study gives up until now the best available evidence., Wider Implications of the Findings: Our study analyzes the effects of culture medium on school performance of children born after IVF/ICSI in a prospective cohort study. Although further research on long-term academic skills and also on behavior is essential, our results are reassuring and should make parents of children born after IVF/ICSI feel comfortable with their children's cognitive development., Study Funding/competing Interests: The study was financially supported by the March of Dimes (Grant no. #6-FY13-153). The sponsor of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., Trial Registration Number: NTR4220.

Study Question: Is embryo culture media used during an IVF/ICSI treatment associated with differences in growth, body composition and cardiovascular development as determined in 9-year-old singleton IVF children?, Summary Answer: The choice of in vitro culture medium for human embryos is associated with differences in body weight, BMI, truncal adiposity, waist circumference and waist/hip ratio at the age of 9, while no significant differences were observed in cardiovascular development., What Is Known Already: Children born after IVF/ICSI have an increased risk of low birthweight, which is correlated with a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases. Some studies show that IVF children exhibit a significantly higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure and higher fasting glucose levels compared to naturally conceived children. After alternating assignment to G1™ Version 3 (Vitrolife) or K-SICM (Cook) embryo culture media, birthweight of the resulting children was significantly higher in the Vitrolife group and they remained heavier during the first 2 years of life., Study Design, Size, Duration: In this observational cohort study (MEDIUM-KIDS), parents of singletons from a previous study were approached for further follow-up after the ninth birthday of their child. The singletons were born after fresh embryo transfer of cleavage stage embryos resulting from an IVF/ICSI treatment performed between July 2003 and December 2006 in our clinic, when two different culture media were used alternately: either G1™ Version 3 (Vitrolife) or K-SICM (Cook). Follow-up measurements were performed between March 2014 and December 2016., Participant/materials, Settings, Methods: Parents were invited to attend our clinic with their child for a single visit lasting ~2.5 h. Two experienced clinicians performed all measurements as part of the MEDIUM-KIDS study in a standardized way. Height and weight of the child was measured using calibrated scales, 4-point skinfold thickness measurements were measured in triplicate and waist and hip circumference were measured using a tape measure. The following cardiovascular parameters were measured in a standardized way: blood pressure, heart rate and endothelial function by skin laser-Doppler with iontophoresis using vasodilatory drugs. Cortisol and cortisone concentrations in hair were measured. A blood sample was taken after an overnight fast for insulin, glucose, TSH and lipid analysis. Blood samples of the IVF children were compared with a non-IVF control group. Differences between culture medium groups were analysed by Student's t-test and effects of confounders were analysed using multivariable regression analysis., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Of the 294 eligible children (168 Vitrolife and 126 Cook), 136 children (75 Vitrolife and 61 Cook) participated in the study. Baseline characteristics of the participating children from the Vitrolife and Cook group were similar. Birthweight was higher in the Vitrolife group, in keeping with the full cohort. After correction for confounders, the difference in weight and BMI attributable to culture medium was 1.58 kg (95% CI: 0.01-3.14) and 0.84 kg/m2 (95% CI: 0.02-1.67), respectively, with the Vitrolife children being heavier. Height and height corrected for age and gender (SDS scores) were similar in both groups. Furthermore, waist circumference was significantly higher in the Vitrolife group with a corrected difference of 3.21 cm (95%CI: 0.60-5.81) leading to a 0.03 increase (95% CI: 0.01-0.05) in waist/hip ratio. Subscapular skinfolds combined with suprailiacal skinfolds (defined as truncal adiposity), was also significantly higher in Vitrolife children (adjusted difference 3.44 cm [95% CI: 0.27-6.62]). Both systolic (adj. beta 0.364 [95% CI: -2.129 to 2.856],) and diastolic (adj. beta 0.275 [95% CI: -2.105 to 2.654]) blood pressures (mmHg) were comparable for the two groups. After an overnight fast, cholesterol, glucose, insulin, low and high-density lipoprotein, triglycerides and TSH were normal and similar in the two groups. Endothelial function in the microcirculation was compared by using maximum perfusion units corrected for the baseline value as a measure for vasodilatory capacity. There were no significant differences between the two groups. Cortisol and cortisone concentration in hair samples were comparable., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: A limitation of the original study was its pseudo-randomized design. This and the dwindling enthusiasm of families for participation (47.7% after 9 years) prevent us from drawing robust causal conclusions from the observed association. Nevertheless, to date this is oldest cohort of IVF/ICSI children where culture medium was allocated alternatingly and used in a blinded setting, to be studied. We believe that our participants are representative for the full cohort. The current number of participants was sufficient to rule out differences as little as 3 mmHg in systolic and diastolic blood pressures., Wider Implications of the Findings: This study underlines the importance of structured follow-up of IVF/ICSI children to further elucidate possible long-term health effects. Health professionals and culture medium manufacturers should be aware that small changes in culture conditions and culture medium composition for the early embryo can have long-term health effects. The similar cardiovascular results for the two groups are reassuring but the children may still be too young to detect differences in cardiovascular development. Prolonged follow-up and structured investigations up until adulthood are necessary to gain more insight and reassurance in the cardiovascular development of IVF offspring, although long-term follow-up will become more complicated by confounding life-style and environmental factors possibly influencing development., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study was financially supported by the March of Dimes (Grant number #6-FY13-153). The sponsor of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., Trial Registration Number: NTR4220.

Study Questions: We aim to produce, disseminate and implement a core outcome set for future infertility research., What Is Known Already: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating infertility treatments have reported many different outcomes, which are often defined and measured in different ways. Such variation contributes to an inability to compare, contrast and combine results of individual RCTs. The development of a core outcome set will ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are consistently collected and reported across future infertility research., Study Design Size Duration: This is a consensus study using the modified Delphi method. All stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, researchers and people with lived experience of infertility will be invited to participate., Participants/materials Setting Methods: An international steering group, including people with lived experience of infertility, healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals and researchers, has been formed to guide the development of this core outcome set. Potential core outcomes have been identified through a comprehensive literature review of RCTs evaluating treatments for infertility and will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Participants will be asked to score potential core outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale anchored between one (not important) and nine (critical). Repeated reflection and rescoring should promote convergence towards consensus 'core' outcomes. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes., Study Funding/competing Interests: This project is funded by the Royal Society of New Zealand Catalyst Fund (3712235). BWM reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, Merck, and ObsEva. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Fractyl and Ogeda and research sponsorship from Ferring. S.B. is the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Objective: To estimate patterns of publication of clinical trials of endometriosis registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and their associated characteristics., Methods: Information on interventional clinical trials on endometriosis that were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov and updated as having been completed by October 25, 2012, was retrieved and the publication status and time to publication in Medline-indexed journals were ascertained by searching PubMed and by sending e-mail inquiries to the principal investigators listed by the registry., Results: Seventy-one interventional trials of endometriosis, testing various drugs and biologicals, were identified. Among them, 49.3% (35/71) were completed by October 25, 2012, 21.1% were either stopped or inactive in the past 2 years, and the remaining 29.6% were ongoing. Among the 35 completed trials, 25 (71.4%) were sponsored by industry and results were published for only 11 (31.4%; five industry-sponsored, and six nonindustry-sponsored). Trials sponsored by industry were nearly four times less likely to publish their results than nonindustry-sponsored trials, even though these trials typically had larger sample sizes and were completed faster. Compared with the publication rate of 20% found 4 years ago, the current rate has increased only marginally but still lies significantly below the reported 66.3% surveyed recently among 546 completed nonendometriosis trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (P<.001)., Conclusion: Despite mounting pressure on more transparency of clinical trials, the current state of transparency or lack thereof of clinical trials on endometriosis is worrisome and does not benefit the trial sponsor or the public. Thus, we again call for more transparency for endometriosis trials.