21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Claims for fertility interventions: a systematic assessment of statements on UK fertility centre websites

      systematic-review
      , , ,
      BMJ Open
      BMJ Publishing Group
      fertility, evidence-based medicine, patient information

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Fertility services in the UK are offered by over 200 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)-registered NHS and private clinics. While in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) form part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, many further interventions are offered. We aimed to record claims of benefit for interventions offered by fertility centres via information on the centres' websites and record what evidence was cited for these claims.

          Methods

          We obtained from HFEA a list of all UK centres providing fertility treatments and examined their websites. We listed fertility interventions offered in addition to standard IVF and ICSI and recorded statements about interventions that claimed or implied improvements in fertility in healthy women. We recorded which claims were quantified, and the evidence cited in support of the claims. Two reviewers extracted data from websites. We accessed websites from 21 December 2015 to 31 March 2016.

          Results

          We found 233 websites for HFEA-registered fertility treatment centres, of which 152 (65%) were excluded as duplicates or satellite centres, 2 were andrology clinics and 5 were unavailable or under construction websites. In total, 74 fertility centre websites, incorporating 1401 web pages, were examined for claims. We found 276 claims of benefit relating to 41 different fertility interventions made by 60 of the 74 centres (median 3 per website; range 0 to 10). Quantification was given for 79 (29%) of the claims. 16 published references were cited 21 times on 13 of the 74 websites.

          Conclusions

          Many fertility centres in the UK offer a range of treatments in addition to standard IVF procedures, and for many of these interventions claims of benefit are made. In most cases, the claims are not quantified and evidence is not cited to support the claims. There is a need for more information on interventions to be made available by fertility centres, to support well-informed treatment decisions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Embryo incubation and selection in a time-lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study.

          To quantify the effect on reproductive outcome of culturing and selecting embryos using a novel time-lapse monitoring system (TMS). Retrospective observational cohort study. University-affiliated private center. Donation and autologous intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles from ten IVF clinics using similar procedures, cultured in TMS (n = 1,390) or in a standard incubator (SI; n = 5,915). None. Clinical pregnancy rate confirmed by ultrasound in week 7. A logistic regression analysis, which included all significant confounding factors, was used to evaluate the effect of culturing and selecting embryos with the use of TMS. Comparing clinical pregnancy rates per oocyte retrieval with TMS and SI treatments gave a crude effect of odds ratio [OR] 1.190 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.058-1.337). Oocyte source, maternal age, day of transfer, and number of retrieved oocytes were identified as significant confounding factors. After accounting for confounding factors, the effect of TMS culture was OR 1.201 (95% CI 1.059-1.363). Limiting analysis to treatments with embryo transfer and including number of transferred embryos as a confounding factor likewise gave a significant effect of TMS with OR 1.157 (95% CI 1.018-1.315). Analysis of retrospective data indicated that culturing and selecting embryos by TMS significantly improved the relative probability of clinical pregnancy (+20.1% per oocyte retrieval, +15.7% per embryo transfer). The elevated clinical pregnancy rate was attributed to a combination of stable culture conditions and the use of morphokinetic parameters for embryo selection. Copyright © 2012 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Endometrial injury to overcome recurrent embryo implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

            Mechanical endometrial injury (biopsy/scratch or hysteroscopy) in the cycle preceding ovarian stimulation for IVF has been proposed to improve implantation in women with unexplained recurrent implantation failure (RIF). This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the efficacy of endometrial injury versus no intervention in women with RIF undergoing IVF. All controlled studies of endometrial biopsy/scratch or hysteroscopy performed in the cycle preceding ovarian stimulation were included and the primary outcome measure was clinical pregnancy rate. Pooling of seven controlled studies (four randomized and three non-randomized), with 2062 participants, showed that local endometrial injury induced in the cycle preceding ovarian stimulation is 70% more likely to result in a clinical pregnancy as opposed to no intervention. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity in the methods used, clinical pregnancy rates being twice as high with biopsy/scratch (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.72-3.13) as opposed to hysteroscopy (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.30-1.75). The evidence is strongly in favour of inducing local endometrial injury in the preceding cycle of ovarian stimulation to improve pregnancy outcomes in women with unexplained RIF. However, large randomized studies are required before iatrogenic induction of local endometrial injury can be warranted in routine clinical practice. Some women undergoing IVF treatment fail to conceive despite several attempts with good-quality embryos and no identifiable reason. We call this 'recurrent implantation failure' (RIF) where the embryo fails to embed or implant within the lining of the womb. Studies have shown that inducing injury to the lining of the womb in the cycle before starting ovarian stimulation for IVF can help improve the chances of achieving pregnancy. Injury can be induced by either scratching the lining of the womb using a biopsy tube or by telescopic investigation of the womb using a camera. We performed a collective review of the available good-quality studies that used the above two methods in the cycle prior to starting ovarian stimulation for IVF. We pooled results from seven studies, which included 2062 women with RIF and assessed the difference in clinical pregnancy rates for those undergoing injury to the womb lining compared with no injury prior to IVF. The results suggest that inducing injury is 70% more likely to result in a clinical pregnancy as opposed to no treatment. Furthermore, scratching of the lining was 2-times more likely to result in a clinical pregnancy compared with telescopic evaluation of the lining of the womb. This study suggests that in women with RIF, inducing local injury to the womb lining in the cycle prior to starting ovarian stimulation for IVF can improve pregnancy outcomes. However, large studies are required before this can be warranted in routine clinical practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Local injury to the endometrium in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles improves implantation rates.

              To explore the possibility that local injury to the endometrium in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycle improves the incidence of embryo implantation and to analyze the gene expression profile in the endometria of pregnant and nonpregnant patients in in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Prospective study. A clinical assisted reproductive center of a university hospital. Women undergoing fresh IVF-ET cycles (n = 121), treated with a long protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, whose endometrium were diagnosed by B-ultrasound showing irregular echo. Local injury to the endometrium of 60 patients in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycle, who were randomly selected from a total of 121 patients. Seven endometrial biopsies samples from day 10 were analyzed by Affymetrix U133 plus 2.0 gene chip. Outcomes of IVF-ET and gene expression assayed by gene chip technology. Transfer of the same number of embryos (135 in the experimental and control patients, respectively) resulted in rates of implantation (33.33% vs. 17.78%), clinical pregnancy (48.33% vs. 27.86%), and ongoing or live births per ET (41.67% vs. 22.96%) that were higher in the experimental group compared with controls. Statistically significant differences of the expression level of 218 genes (41 up-regulated and 177 down-regulated) were detected in the endometrial biopsy samples from clinical pregnant patients and nonpregnant patients. The results suggested local injury to the endometrium during a COH cycle improved the rates of embryo implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth in ART. We also demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the messenger RNA (mRNA) expression profiles in the endometrium of pregnant and nonpregnant patients. Further studies on the genes identified herein will assist in predicting implantation competence.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                28 November 2016
                : 6
                : 11
                : e013940
                Affiliations
                Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr C Heneghan; carl.heneghan@ 123456phc.ox.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjopen-2016-013940
                10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013940
                5168515
                27890866
                2ae05696-4f99-44fb-a080-e0c26771ccb9
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 18 August 2016
                : 23 September 2016
                : 22 November 2016
                Categories
                Communication
                Research
                1506
                1684

                Medicine
                fertility,evidence-based medicine,patient information
                Medicine
                fertility, evidence-based medicine, patient information

                Comments

                Comment on this article