Dataset Information

No common denominator: a review of outcome measures in IVF RCTs.

ABSTRACT:

Study question

Which outcome measures are reported in RCTs for IVF?

Summary answer

Many combinations of numerator and denominator are in use, and are often employed in a manner that compromises the validity of the study.

What is known already

The choice of numerator and denominator governs the meaning, relevance and statistical integrity of a study's results. RCTs only provide reliable evidence when outcomes are assessed in the cohort of randomised participants, rather than in the subgroup of patients who completed treatment.

Study design, size, duration

Review of outcome measures reported in 142 IVF RCTs published in 2013 or 2014.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register. English-language publications of RCTs reporting clinical or preclinical outcomes in peer-reviewed journals in the period 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2014 were eligible. Reported numerators and denominators were extracted. Where they were reported, we checked to see if live birth rates were calculated correctly using the entire randomised cohort or a later denominator.

Main results and the role of chance

Over 800 combinations of numerator and denominator were identified (613 in no more than one study). No single outcome measure appeared in the majority of trials. Only 22 (43%) studies reporting live birth presented a calculation including all randomised participants or only excluding protocol violators. A variety of definitions were used for key clinical numerators: for example, a consensus regarding what should constitute an ongoing pregnancy does not appear to exist at present.

Limitations, reasons for caution

Several of the included articles may have been secondary publications. Our categorisation scheme was essentially arbitrary, so the frequencies we present should be interpreted with this in mind. The analysis of live birth denominators was post hoc.

Wider implications of the findings

There is massive diversity in numerator and denominator selection in IVF trials due to its multistage nature, and this causes methodological frailty in the evidence base. The twin spectres of outcome reporting bias and analysis of non-randomised comparisons do not appear to be widely recognised. Initiatives to standardise outcome reporting, such as requiring all effectiveness studies to report live birth or cumulative live birth, are welcome. However, there is a need to recognise that early outcomes of treatment, such as stimulation response or embryo quality, may be appropriate choices of primary outcome for early phase studies.

Study funding/competing interests

J.W. is funded by a Doctoral Research Fellowship from the National Institute for Health Research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health. J.W. also declares that publishing research is beneficial to his career. J.W. and A.V. are statistical editors, and M.S. is Information Specialist, for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, although the views expressed here are not necessarily those of the group. D.R.B. is funded by the NHS as Scientific Director of a clinical IVF service. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.

SUBMITTER: Wilkinson J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5193327 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

No common denominator: a review of outcome measures in IVF RCTs.

Wilkinson Jack J Roberts Stephen A SA Showell Marian M Brison Daniel R DR Vail Andy A

Human reproduction (Oxford, England) 20160922 12

<h4>Study question</h4>Which outcome measures are reported in RCTs for IVF?<h4>Summary answer</h4>Many combinations of numerator and denominator are in use, and are often employed in a manner that compromises the validity of the study.<h4>What is known already</h4>The choice of numerator and denominator governs the meaning, relevance and statistical integrity of a study's results. RCTs only provide reliable evidence when outcomes are assessed in the cohort of randomised participants, rather than ...[more]

PMID: 27664214

Similar Datasets

Project description:Vaccine hesitancy and refusal to be vaccinated are major reasons why mass vaccination strategies do not reach the intended coverage, even if adequate vaccine supply has been achieved. The main objective of this study is to explore the role and contribution of trust in public willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccinations. The study utilised a qualitative synthesis of literature around hesitancy, willingness to accept vaccination, and the role of trust. Data were extracted from the literature and first categorised using a deductive approach, and later analysed in QSR NVivo using a mix of deductive and inductive approaches. The impact of trust was mostly borne out in the willingness to accept a vaccine, but details on what trust is, how and why it affects willingness or lack of it, was not frequently reported. Three types of trust were identified: 1) Trust in the quality and safety of vaccines; 2) Institutional trust; and 3) Interpersonal trust in the professionals who communicate about and administer the vaccine. Trust in the vaccines' quality and safety, and institutional affiliation significantly contributed towards willingness to be vaccinated. The bulk of the literature focused on how interpersonal trust and personal attributes of potential vaccinees affected the willingness to accept the vaccine. This complex relationship included a fragility of beliefs and perceptions at an individual level, with a bidirectional relationship to societal perceptions. Perceptions of vaccines had a predominant role in decision-making, in contrast to more science-based decision-making. Although globally, the perceptions and beliefs contributing to trust had commonalities and relevance, trust was often found to be dependent on factors embedded in local social, cultural, institutional, and individual attributes and experiences. Understanding different types of trust offers potential approaches to motivate undecided people to receive vaccine; and vaccine refusers to revisit their decisions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A core outcome set (COS) represents the agreed minimum set of domains and measurement instruments that should be measured and reported in any clinical trial for a given condition. In BMS randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the outcomes identified in the existing literature regarding the efficacy of therapeutic interventions are numerous and diverse. Although the standardized IMMPACT core outcome domains has been developed for measurement of outcomes in chronic pain RCTs, no BMS-specific COS have been adopted and validated. With the evolving landscape of BMS management end points and the development of new therapies, a consensus on a COS for use in future BMS trials is paramount to reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus for adopting the standardized Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) outcome domains, and their tools of assessment, for burning mouth syndrome (BMS) clinical trials and clinical practice. METHODS:A BMS-specific COS will be developed using the method recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effective Trials (COMET) initiative (Registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1357 ). Selection of questionnaire outcome measures was informed by the IMMPACT consensus and previous systematic review of RCTs in BMS conducted by the consortium. An international group of clinicians and researchers will be invited to participate in several rounds of a Delphi survey. A consensus meeting will be held with the objective of ratifying the outcomes for inclusion in the COS. A finalized COS explanatory document will be drafted, including all outcomes and measurements as determined by the Delphi rounds and consensus meeting. DISCUSSION:A COS for the management of BMS will improve the quality of future RCTs, reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity, and facilitate more vigorous data synthesis of management interventions for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. This would ensure enhanced quality evidence for clinical management of the condition.

Project description:Subjective measures involving clinician ratings or patient self-assessments have become recognised as an important tool for the assessment of health outcome. The value of a health outcome measure is usually assessed by a psychometric evaluation of its reliability, validity and responsiveness. However, psychometric testing involves an accumulation of evidence and has recognised limitations. It has been suggested that an evaluation of how well a measure has been developed would be a useful additional criteria in assessing the value of a measure. This paper explored the theoretical background and methodological development of subjective health status measures commonly used in osteoarthritis research. Fourteen subjective health outcome measures commonly used in osteoarthritis research were examined. Each measure was explored on the basis of their i) theoretical framework (was there a definition of what was being assessed and was it part of a theoretical model?) and ii) methodological development (what was the scaling strategy, how were the items generated and reduced, what was the response format and what was the scoring method?). Only the AIMS, SF-36 and WHOQOL defined what they were assessing (i.e. the construct of interest) and no measure assessed was part of a theoretical model. None of the clinician report measures appeared to have implemented a scaling procedure or described the rationale for the items selected or scoring system. Of the patient self-report measures, the AIMS, MPQ, OXFORD, SF-36, WHOQOL and WOMAC appeared to follow a standard psychometric scaling method. The DRP and EuroQol used alternative scaling methods. The review highlighted the general lack of theoretical framework for both clinician report and patient self-report measures. This review also drew attention to the wide variation in the methodological development of commonly used measures in OA. While, in general the patient self-report measures had good methodological development, the clinician report measures appeared less well developed. It would be of value if new measures defined the construct of interest and, that the construct, be part of theoretical model. By ensuring measures are both theoretically and empirically valid then improvements in subjective health outcome measures should be possible.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization claimed that measuring outcomes is necessary to understand the benefits of assistive technology (AT) and create evidence-based policies and systems to ensure universal access to it. In clinical practice, there is an increasing need for standardized methods to track AT interventions using outcome assessments.ObjectiveThis review provides an overview of the available outcome measures that can be used at the follow-up stage of any AT intervention and integrated into daily clinical or service practice.MethodsWe systematically searched for original manuscripts regarding available and used AT outcome measures by searching for titles and abstracts in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to March 2023.ResultsWe analyzed 955 articles, of which 50 (5.2%) were included in the review. Within these, 53 instruments have been mentioned and used to provide an AT outcome assessment. The most widely used tool is the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology, followed by the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Technology Scale. Moreover, the identified measures addressed 8 AT outcome domains: functional efficacy, satisfaction, psychosocial impact, caregiver burden, quality of life, participation, confidence, and usability. The AT category Assistive products for activities and participation relating to personal mobility and transportation was the most involved in the reviewed articles.ConclusionsAmong the 53 cited instruments, only 17 (32%) scales were designed to evaluate specifically assistive devices. Moreover, 64% (34/53) of the instruments were only mentioned once to denote poor uniformity and concordance in the instruments to be used, limiting the possibility of comparing the results of studies. This work could represent a good guide for promoting the use of validated AT outcome measures in clinical practice that can be helpful to AT assessment teams in their everyday activities and the improvement of clinical practice.

Dataset Information

No common denominator: a review of outcome measures in IVF RCTs.

Study question

Summary answer

What is known already

Study design, size, duration

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Main results and the role of chance

Limitations, reasons for caution

Wider implications of the findings

Study funding/competing interests

Publications

No common denominator: a review of outcome measures in IVF RCTs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets