Search

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 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.

Background Timely publication of clinical trials is critical to ensure the dissemination and implementation of high-quality healthcare evidence. This study investigates the publication rate and time to publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). Materials and methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of RCTs registered with the ANZCTR in 2007, 2009, and 2011. Multiple bibliographic databases were searched until October 2021 to identify trial publications. We then calculated publication rates, proportions, and the time to publish calculated from the date of first participation enrolment to publication date. Results Of 1,970 trial registrations, 541 (27%) remained unpublished 10 to 14 years later, and the proportion of trials published decreased by 7% from 2007 to 2011. The average time to publish was 4.63 years. The prospective trial registration rate for 2007, 2009 and 2011 was 48% (952 trials) and over this time there was an increase of 19% (280 prospective trials). Trials funded by non-Industry organizations were more likely to be published (74%, 1204/1625 trials) than the industry-funded trials (61%, 224/345 trials). Larger trials with at least 1000 participants were published at a rate of 88% (85/97 trials) and on average took 5.4 years to be published. Smaller trials with less than 100 participants were published at a lower rate with 67% (687/1024 trials) published and these trials took 4.31 years on average to publish. Conclusions Just over a quarter of all trials on the ANZCTR for 2007, 2009, and 2011 remain unpublished over a decade later. The average time to publication of nearly five years may reflect the larger trials which will have taken longer to recruit participants. Over half of study sample trials were retrospectively registered, but prospective registration improved over time, highlighting the role of mandating trial registration.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether endometrial scratching increases the chance of live birth in women with unexplained infertility attempting to conceive without assisted reproductive technology.DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, participant-blind, multicenter international trial.SETTING: Fertility clinics.PATIENT(S): Women with a diagnosis of unexplained infertility trying to conceive without assistance.INTERVENTION(S): Participants were randomly assigned to receive an endometrial biopsy or a placebo procedure (placement of a biopsy catheter in the posterior fornix, without inserting it into the external cervical os). Both groups performed regular unprotected intercourse with the intention of conceiving over three consecutive study cycles.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome was live birth.RESULT(S): A total of 220 women underwent randomization. The live birth rate was 9% (10 of 113 women) in the endometrial-scratch group and 7% (7 of 107 women) in the control group (adjusted OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.50-4.03). There were no differences between the groups in the secondary outcomes of clinical pregnancy, viable pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and miscarriage. Endometrial scratching was associated with a higher pain score on a 10-point scale (adjusted mean difference, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.53-3.60).CONCLUSION(S): This trial did not find evidence that endometrial scratching improves the live birth rate in women with unexplained infertility trying to conceive without assistance.CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000656639.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in premenopausal women. Although surgery is often used as a treatment, a range of medical therapies are also available. Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce prostaglandin levels, which are elevated in women with excessive menstrual bleeding and also may have a beneficial effect on dysmenorrhoea. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of NSAIDs in achieving a reduction in menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women of reproductive years with HMB. SEARCH METHODS: We searched, in April 2019, the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the clinical trial registries and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of individual NSAIDs or combined with other medical therapy with each other, placebo or other medical treatments in women with regular heavy periods measured either objectively or subjectively and with no pathological or iatrogenic (treatment‐induced) causes for their HMB. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (759 women) that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review and two review authors independently extracted data. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes from the data of nine trials. We described in data tables the results of the remaining seven cross‐over trials with data unsuitable for pooling, one trial with skewed data, and one trial with missing variances. One trial had no data available for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: As a group, NSAIDs were more effective than placebo at reducing HMB but less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or the levonorgestrel‐releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS). Treatment with danazol caused a shorter duration of menstruation and more adverse events than NSAIDs, but this did not appear to affect the acceptability of treatment, based on trials from 1980 to 1990. However, currently danazol is not a usual or recommended treatment for HMB. There was no clear evidence of difference between NSAIDs and the other treatments (oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, an older progesterone‐releasing intrauterine system and the oral contraceptive pill (OCP), but most studies were underpowered. There was no evidence of a difference between the individual NSAIDs (naproxen and mefenamic acid) in reducing HMB. The evidence quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitations being risk of bias and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs reduce HMB when compared with placebo, but are less effective than tranexamic acid, danazol or LNG IUS. However, adverse events are more severe with danazol therapy. In the limited number of small studies suitable for evaluation, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between NSAIDs and other medical treatments such as oral luteal progestogen, ethamsylate, OCP or the older progesterone‐releasing intrauterine system.

Successive New Zealand Health Ministers have failed to approve guidelines for research using viable human embryos, which effectively places a blanket ban on all research that "uses" viable human embryos in this country. This includes research that aims to improve currently available reproductive technologies, illustrated by a failed application to ministerial ethics committees for a clinical research project investigating the efficacy of in vitro fertilisation procedures. However, no data currently exists describing the degree to which these restrictions are inhibiting reproductive research in this country.We have conducted a qualitative survey of New Zealand researchers from 20 major academic, clinical and governmental institutes to qualify the impact these restrictions are having on New Zealand's research outputs.The results suggest dissatisfaction with the current guidelines, and the lack of guidance from the Ministry of Health and associated ethics committees regarding what constitutes embryo research and therefore what research can be performed.The lack of current guidelines regarding the use of embryos for research is restricting improvements to established reproductive technologies, and any future research. We suggest that the Minister of Health instructs ministerial advisory and ethics committees to review the current guidelines and to define the term "use of embryos".

Clinical Question What treatments are associated with improved outcomes for women with endometriosis? Bottom Line The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUD), gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa; nafarelin, leuprolide, buserelin, goserelin, triptorelin), laparoscopic ablation, and excision are associated with relief of pain due to endometriosis. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues and laparoscopic ablation or excision are associated with increased clinical pregnancy rates in women with endometriosis. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues, danazol, and depot progestagens are associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Menorrhagia or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an excessive blood loss that impairs a woman's quality of life, either physical, emotional, social or material. It is benign and not associated with pregnancy or any other gynaecological or systemic disease. Medical treatments used to reduce excessive menstrual blood loss (MBL) include prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors, antifibrinolytics, oral contraceptive pills, and other hormones. The combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) is claimed to have a variety of beneficial effects, inducing a regular shedding of a thinner endometrium and inhibiting ovulation, thus having the effect of both treating HMB and providing contraception. More recently, a contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) has been trialled to investigate whether this treatment can provide similar benefits to COCP while lessening hormonal systemic exposure. This review is an update of a review which originally focused on COCP alone. The scope of the review has been widened to consider other types of delivery of combined hormonal contraceptives for reduction of MBL. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives (pills, vaginal ring or patch) compared with other medical therapies, placebo, or no therapy in the treatment of HMB. A secondary objective was to compare the COCP with the CVR. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Gynecology and Fertility Group trials register, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO (search dates: Oct 1996, May 2002, June 2004, April 2006, June 2009, July 2017 and September 2018) for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of COCP and CVR for the treatment of HMB. We also searched trial registers and the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of COCP or CVR compared with no treatment, placebo, or other medical therapies for women with HMB and regular menstrual cycles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All assessments of trial quality and data extraction were performed unblinded by at least two review authors. Our primary review outcomes were treatment success, menstrual bleeding (assessed objectively, semi‐objectively or subjectively), and participant satisfaction with treatment. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, and haemoglobin level. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs involving 805 participants. Two trials comparing COCP with placebo were considered to be moderate quality and the remaining studies were low to very low quality, mainly because of serious risk of bias from lack of blinding and concerns over precision. COCP versus placebo COCP, with a step‐down oestrogen and step‐up progestogen regimen, improved response to treatment (return to menstrual 'normality') (OR 22.12, 95% CI 4.40 to 111.12; 2 trials; 363 participants; I(2) = 50%; moderate‐quality evidence), and lowered MBL (OR 5.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 8.40; 2 trials; 339 participants; I(2) = 0%; moderate‐quality evidence) when compared to placebo. The results suggested that, if the chance of 'successful' treatment was 3% in women taking placebo, then COCP increased this chance from 12% to 77% in women with unacceptable HMB. Minor adverse events, in particular breast pain, were more common with COCP. No study in this comparison reported semi‐objectively assessed MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment. COCP versus other medical treatments Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the COCP reduced MBL when compared to NSAIDs (mefenamic acid and naproxen). No study in this comparison reported semi‐objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, participant satisfaction with treatment or adverse events. Levonorgestrel‐releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS) The LNG IUS was more effective than COCP in reducing MBL (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.48; 2 trials; 151 participants; I(2) = 0%; low‐quality evidence) but it was not clear whether satisfaction with treatment or adverse effects varied according to which treatment was used. No study in this comparison reported semi‐objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL. Contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) versus other medical treatments COCP COCP was compared with CVR in two trials. There were discrepancies between some of the findings and there was no evidence of a benefit for one treatment compared to the other for response to treatment, MBL or participant satisfaction with treatment. There was a greater likelihood of nausea with COCP. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL or subjectively assessed MBL. Progestogens CVR was compared to long course progestogens in one trial. It is possible that CVR increased the odds of satisfaction; but we are uncertain whether CVR improved MBL. The evidence was based on small numbers of participants and was very low quality, so definitive conclusions could not be reached. No study in this comparison reported objectively assessed MBL, subjectively assessed MBL, or adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate‐quality evidence suggests that the combined oral contraceptive pill over six months reduces HMB in women with unacceptable HMB from 12% to 77% (compared to 3% in women taking placebo). When compared with other medical options for HMB, COCP was less effective than the LNG IUS. Limited evidence suggested that COCP and CVR had similar effects. There was insufficient evidence to determine comparative efficacy of combined hormonal contraceptives with NSAIDs, or long course progestogens.

Ectopic endometrial tissue is found in up to 20% of asymptomatic women, up to 60% of those with dysmenorrhoea, and up to 30% of women with subfertility, with a peak incidence at around 40 years of age. However, symptoms may not correlate with laparoscopic findings.We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of hormonal treatments given at diagnosis of endometriosis? What are the effects of hormonal treatments before surgery for endometriosis? What are the effects of non-hormonal medical treatments for endometriosis? What are the effects of surgical treatments for endometriosis? What are the effects of hormonal treatment after conservative surgery for endometriosis? What are the effects of hormonal treatment after oophorectomy (with or without hysterectomy) for endometriosis? What are the effects of treatments for ovarian endometrioma? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to April 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).We found 32 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: combined oral contraceptives; danazol; dydrogesterone; gestrinone; gonadorelin analogues; hormonal treatment before surgery; hormonal treatment; laparoscopic cystectomy; laparoscopic removal of endometriotic deposits (alone or with uterine nerve ablation); laparoscopic removal plus presacral neurectomy; laparoscopic uterine nerve ablation; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; presacral neurectomy alone; and progestogens other than dydrogesterone.

Evidence-based medicine has become the catch-cry phrase of the 1990s. It is about using evidence from well-designed research and applying it to everyday practice. It would be a difficult task to appraise all the evidence from research without the help of well-prepared systematic reviews. This article examines some aspects of this approach.

Background: Dysmenorrhoea refers to the occurrence of painful menstrual cramps of uterine origin and is a common gynaecological condition with considerable morbidity. The behavioural approach assumes that psychological and environmental factors interact with, and influence, physiological processes. Behavioural interventions for dysmenorrhoea may include both physical and cognitive procedures and focus on both physical and psychological coping strategies for dysmenorrhoeic symptoms rather than modification of any underlying organic pathology. Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of any behavioural interventions for the treatment of primary or secondary dysmenorrhoea when compared to each other, placebo, no treatment, or conventional medical treatments for example non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched April 2005), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL on The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2005), EMBASE (1980 to April 2005), Social Sciences Index (1980 to April 2005), PsycINFO (1972 to April 2005) and CINAHL (1982 to April 2005) and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing behavioural interventions with placebo or other interventions in women with dysmenorrhoea. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Main results: Five trials involving 213 women were included. Behavioural intervention vs control: One trial of pain management training reported reduction in pain and symptoms compared to a control. Three trials of relaxation compared to control reported varied results, two trials showed no difference in symptom severity scores however one trial reported relaxation was effective for reducing symptoms in menstrual sufferers with spasmodic symptoms. Two trials reported less restriction in daily activities following treatment with either relaxation of pain management training compared to a control. One trial also reported less time absent from school following treatment wit pain management training compared to a control. Behavioural intervention vs other behavioural interventions: Three trials showed no difference between behavioural interventions for the outcome of improvement in symptoms. One trial showed that relaxation resulted in a decrease in the need for resting time compared to the relaxation and imagery. Authors' conclusions: There is some evidence from five RCTs that behavioural interventions may be effective for dysmenorrhoea however results should be viewed with caution as they varied greatly between trials due to inconsistency in the reporting of data, small trial size, poormethodological quality and age of the trials.

Ectopic pregnancy is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Use of transvaginal ultrasonography and quantitative measurement of the beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG) has led to a reduction in the need for diagnostic laparoscopy. Furthermore, with earlier diagnosis, medical therapy with methotrexate can be offered and surgery avoided in some women, though the best regimen remains unclear. In the surgical management of ectopic pregnancy, the benefits of salpingectomy over salpingostomy are uncertain. Although there have been advances in the management of ectopic pregnancy there are still questions to be answered.

To determine the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography, sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy for the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding in premenopausal women.Systematic review of common diagnostic imaging tests.Relevant papers were identified through electronic searching of MEDLINE (1980 to July 2001) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2001) and manual searching of a bibliography of primary and review articles.Studies were selected if accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography, sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy was compared with a reference standard and included data that could be abstracted into a two-by-two table in order to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed by at least two independent reviewers. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by calculating positive and negative likelihood ratios for all intrauterine pathologies, submucous fibroids and endometrial hyperplasia.Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Statistically significant heterogeneity was present between the likelihood ratios for studies of transvaginal ultrasound. A positive test result with sonohysterography diagnosed submucous fibroids with a pooled likelihood ratio of 29.7 (17.8, 49.6). A positive test result with hysteroscopy diagnosed submucous fibroids with a pooled likelihood ratio of 29.4 (13.4, 65.3), and any intrauterine pathology with a pooled likelihood ratio of 7.7 (4.3, 13.7). A negative test result with hysteroscopy for diagnosing any intrauterine pathology had a pooled likelihood ratio of 0.07 (0.04, 0.15).Although there was considerable variability present between the studies, all three diagnostic tests were moderately accurate in detecting intrauterine pathology. However, sonohysterography and hysteroscopy performed better than transvaginal ultrasound in detecting submucous fibroids.