Assessing the uptake of infertility core outcome set in IVF randomized controlled trials

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Human reproduction Pub Date : 2024-12-14 DOI:10.1093/humrep/deae255
Wenqiang Li, Nanxi Jia, Hongbin Chi, Siyan Zhan, Lin Zeng
{"title":"Assessing the uptake of infertility core outcome set in IVF randomized controlled trials","authors":"Wenqiang Li, Nanxi Jia, Hongbin Chi, Siyan Zhan, Lin Zeng","doi":"10.1093/humrep/deae255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"STUDY QUESTION Do the infertility core outcome set and standardized definitions affect the outcome selection for randomized controlled trials, and what aspects should be further improved in the future? SUMMARY ANSWER Intrauterine pregnancy demonstrated the highest uptake level, whereas others were low, especially in neonatal outcomes; as time progresses, the target sample size increases, and with prospective registration, the consistency between outcomes reported in registrations and infertility core outcome set improves significantly. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The infertility core outcome set, published on 30 November 2020, aims to standardize outcome reporting and prevent selective reporting bias; however, there is a paucity of research evaluating its actual adoption, which is crucial for the timely promotion of transparency, standardization, adjustment of development strategies, and efficient resource utilization. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This cross-sectional study included 1673 eligible randomized controlled trial registrations for infertility in 18 registries from March 2004 to July 2024 based on registry entries. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS A total of 4625 infertility-related studies from 1 November 1999 to 26 July 2024 were retrieved in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Finally, 1673 randomized controlled trial registrations were selected and divided into four period groups. Period, target sample size, prospective registration, blinding, support, and countries/regions were potential influencing factors. The consistency of outcomes, definitions, and standardized denominators of randomized controlled trial registry entries with the recommendations of the infertility core outcome set were the main outcomes. Independent retrieval, screening, data extraction, and consistency evaluations by two assessors and expert consultations were conducted to assess the uptake and potential influencing factors of the infertility core outcome set in randomized controlled trials involving infertile patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Results reveal that the reporting level in the pregnancy domain was significantly higher than that in the neonatal domain (13.6% vs 5.7%). Intrauterine pregnancy (66.9%), live birth (27.6%), and miscarriage (26.5%) had relatively high uptake levels. The uptake of most core outcomes and domains, as well as the total number of reported core outcomes, showed statistically significant differences based on period, target sample size, and prospective registration. Multivariable analyses supported the above finding. Reasons responsible for the results may be attributed to the lack of effective promotional measures, as well as the limited researcher awareness regarding this core outcome set. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Some results in this study may have been influenced by the subjective judgment of the evaluators due to the complexity of the information in registries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Uptake of most core outcomes or domains is increasing but is not yet ideal. Moreover, the upward trend cannot be solely attributed to the publication of the infertility core outcome set. The key to promoting uptake is to thoroughly explore and recognize the factors that both facilitate and hinder the uptake of the infertility core outcome set, further expand and publicize the core outcome set, and foster multidisciplinary or multiple stakeholder cooperation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was supported by the Capital’s Funds for Health Improvement and Research (CFH 2024-2G-4097), as well as the special fund of Beijing Key Clinical Specialty Construction Project. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/3184","PeriodicalId":13003,"journal":{"name":"Human reproduction","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deae255","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION Do the infertility core outcome set and standardized definitions affect the outcome selection for randomized controlled trials, and what aspects should be further improved in the future? SUMMARY ANSWER Intrauterine pregnancy demonstrated the highest uptake level, whereas others were low, especially in neonatal outcomes; as time progresses, the target sample size increases, and with prospective registration, the consistency between outcomes reported in registrations and infertility core outcome set improves significantly. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The infertility core outcome set, published on 30 November 2020, aims to standardize outcome reporting and prevent selective reporting bias; however, there is a paucity of research evaluating its actual adoption, which is crucial for the timely promotion of transparency, standardization, adjustment of development strategies, and efficient resource utilization. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This cross-sectional study included 1673 eligible randomized controlled trial registrations for infertility in 18 registries from March 2004 to July 2024 based on registry entries. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS A total of 4625 infertility-related studies from 1 November 1999 to 26 July 2024 were retrieved in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Finally, 1673 randomized controlled trial registrations were selected and divided into four period groups. Period, target sample size, prospective registration, blinding, support, and countries/regions were potential influencing factors. The consistency of outcomes, definitions, and standardized denominators of randomized controlled trial registry entries with the recommendations of the infertility core outcome set were the main outcomes. Independent retrieval, screening, data extraction, and consistency evaluations by two assessors and expert consultations were conducted to assess the uptake and potential influencing factors of the infertility core outcome set in randomized controlled trials involving infertile patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Results reveal that the reporting level in the pregnancy domain was significantly higher than that in the neonatal domain (13.6% vs 5.7%). Intrauterine pregnancy (66.9%), live birth (27.6%), and miscarriage (26.5%) had relatively high uptake levels. The uptake of most core outcomes and domains, as well as the total number of reported core outcomes, showed statistically significant differences based on period, target sample size, and prospective registration. Multivariable analyses supported the above finding. Reasons responsible for the results may be attributed to the lack of effective promotional measures, as well as the limited researcher awareness regarding this core outcome set. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Some results in this study may have been influenced by the subjective judgment of the evaluators due to the complexity of the information in registries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Uptake of most core outcomes or domains is increasing but is not yet ideal. Moreover, the upward trend cannot be solely attributed to the publication of the infertility core outcome set. The key to promoting uptake is to thoroughly explore and recognize the factors that both facilitate and hinder the uptake of the infertility core outcome set, further expand and publicize the core outcome set, and foster multidisciplinary or multiple stakeholder cooperation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was supported by the Capital’s Funds for Health Improvement and Research (CFH 2024-2G-4097), as well as the special fund of Beijing Key Clinical Specialty Construction Project. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/3184
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估IVF随机对照试验中不孕症核心结局集的吸收
不孕不育的核心结局集和标准化定义是否会影响随机对照试验的结局选择?未来哪些方面需要进一步改进?宫内妊娠表现出最高的摄取水平,而其他情况则较低,特别是在新生儿结局中;随着时间的推移,目标样本量增加,并且在前瞻性登记中,登记中报告的结果与不孕症核心结果集之间的一致性显著提高。2020年11月30日发布的不孕症核心结局集旨在规范结果报告并防止选择性报告偏差;然而,缺乏评估其实际采用情况的研究,这对于及时促进透明度、标准化、调整发展战略和有效利用资源至关重要。研究设计、规模、持续时间本横断面研究纳入了2004年3月至2024年7月18个登记中心的1673例符合条件的不孕症随机对照试验登记。参与者/材料、环境、方法从世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台检索1999年11月1日至2024年7月26日期间共4625项与不孕症相关的研究。最后,选取1673例随机对照试验注册患者,将其分为4个时期组。时间、目标样本量、前瞻性登记、盲法、支持和国家/地区是潜在的影响因素。结果、定义和随机对照试验注册条目与不孕症核心结局集推荐的标准化分母的一致性是主要结局。通过独立检索、筛选、数据提取和一致性评估,通过两位评估员和专家咨询来评估在涉及接受体外受精的不孕症患者的随机对照试验中不孕症核心结局集的吸收和潜在影响因素。结果显示妊娠期的报告率明显高于新生儿期(13.6% vs 5.7%)。宫内妊娠(66.9%)、活产(27.6%)和流产(26.5%)的摄取水平相对较高。大多数核心结局和领域的吸收,以及报告的核心结局的总数,显示出基于时间、目标样本量和前瞻性登记的统计学显著差异。多变量分析支持上述发现。造成这一结果的原因可能是由于缺乏有效的推广措施,以及研究人员对这一核心结果集的认识有限。由于注册信息的复杂性,本研究的一些结果可能会受到评价者主观判断的影响。研究结果的更广泛意义大多数核心结果或领域的吸收正在增加,但尚不理想。此外,上升趋势不能仅仅归因于不孕症核心结局集的发表。促进吸收的关键是深入探索和认识促进和阻碍不孕症核心结局集吸收的因素,进一步扩大和宣传核心结局集,促进多学科或多利益相关者合作。研究经费/竞争利益(S)本研究由首都卫生促进与研究基金(CFH 2024-2G-4097)和北京市临床重点专科建设项目专项基金资助。作者无利益冲突需要申报。试验注册号http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/3184
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Human reproduction
Human reproduction 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
6.60%
发文量
1369
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Human Reproduction features full-length, peer-reviewed papers reporting original research, concise clinical case reports, as well as opinions and debates on topical issues. Papers published cover the clinical science and medical aspects of reproductive physiology, pathology and endocrinology; including andrology, gonad function, gametogenesis, fertilization, embryo development, implantation, early pregnancy, genetics, genetic diagnosis, oncology, infectious disease, surgery, contraception, infertility treatment, psychology, ethics and social issues.
期刊最新文献
Ethical considerations on surrogacy†. Recurrent implantation failure: science or fiction? A randomized controlled trial comparing embryo vitrification with slush nitrogen to liquid nitrogen in women undergoing frozen embryo transfer: embryology and clinical outcomes Beyond the disclosure debate in donor-conception: how do we help families to discuss origin stories with their children? Endometriosis and risk of depression among oral contraceptive users: a pooled analysis of cohort studies from 13 countries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1