Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Duffy JMN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7744161 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡.
Duffy J M N JMN Adamson G D GD Benson E E Bhattacharya S S Bhattacharya S S Bofill M M Brian K K Collura B B Curtis C C Evers J L H JLH Farquharson R G RG Fincham A A Franik S S Giudice L C LC Glanville E E Hickey M M Horne A W AW Hull M L ML Johnson N P NP Jordan V V Khalaf Y Y Knijnenburg J M L JML Legro R S RS Lensen S S MacKenzie J J Mavrelos D D Mol B W BW Morbeck D E DE Nagels H H Ng E H Y EHY Niederberger C C Otter A S AS Puscasiu L L Rautakallio-Hokkanen S S Sadler L L Sarris I I Showell M M Stewart J J Strandell A A Strawbridge C C Vail A A van Wely M M Vercoe M M Vuong N L NL Wang A Y AY Wang R R Wilkinson J J Wong K K Wong T Y TY Farquhar C M CM AlAhwany Hisham H Balaban Ofra O Barton Faith F Beebeejaun Yusuf Y Boivin Jacky J Bosteels Jan J. A. JJA Calhaz-Jorge Carlos C D’Angelo Arianna A F. Dann Leona L J. De Jonge Christopher C du Mez Elyce E A. Ferriani Rui R Gerval Marie-Odile MO J. Gingel Lynda L Greenblatt Ellen M. EM Hartshorne Geraldine G Helliwell Charlie C Hughes Lynda J. LJ Jo Junyoung J Jovanović Jelena J Kiesel Ludwig L Kietpeerakool Chumnan C Kostova Elena E Kucuk Tansu T Kumar Rajesh R Lawrence Robyn L. RL Lee Nicole N Lindemann Katy E. KE Loto Olabisi M. OM Lutjen Peter J. PJ MacKinven Michelle M Mascarenhas Mariano M McLaughlin Helen H Mourad Selma M. SM Nguyen Linh K. LK Norman Robert J. RJ Olic Maja M Overfield Kristine L. KL Parker-Harris Maria M Repping Sjoerd S Rizzo Roberta R Salacone Pietro P Saunders Catherine H. CH Sengupta Rinku R Sfontouris Ioannis A. IA Silverman Natalie R. NR Torrance Helen L. HL Uphoff Eleonora P. EP Wakeman Sarah A. SA Wischmann Tewes T Woodward Bryan J. BJ Youssef Mohamed A. MA
Human reproduction (Oxford, England) 20201201 12
<h4>Study question</h4>Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified?<h4>Summary answer</h4>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.<h4>What is known already</h4>Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7744160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immunization during pregnancy has been recommended in an increasing number of countries. The aim of this strategy is to protect pregnant women and infants from severe infectious disease, morbidity and mortality and is currently limited to tetanus, inactivated influenza, and pertussis-containing vaccines. There have been recent advancements in the development of vaccines designed primarily for use in pregnant women (respiratory syncytial virus and group B Streptococcus vaccines). Although there is increasing evidence to support vaccination in pregnancy, important gaps in knowledge still exist and need to be addressed by future studies. This collaborative consensus paper provides a review of the current literature on immunization during pregnancy and highlights the gaps in knowledge and a consensus of priorities for future research initiatives, in order to optimize protection for both the mother and the infant.
| S-EPMC7326941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh quality primary care is fundamental to achieving health for all. Research priority setting is a key facilitator of improving how research activity responds to concrete needs. There has never before been an attempt to identify international primary care research priorities, in order to guide resource allocation and to enhance global primary care. This study aimed to identify a list of top 10 primary care research priorities, as identified by members of the public, health professionals working in primary care, researchers, and policymakers.MethodsWe adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process, to conduct multiple rounds of stakeholder recruitment and prioritization. The study included an online survey conducted in three languages, followed by an in-person priority setting exercise involving primary care stakeholders from 13 countries.FindingsParticipants identified a list of top 10 international primary care research priorities. These were focused on diverse topics such as enhancing use of information and communication technology, and improving integration of indigenous communities' knowledge in the design of primary care services. The main limitations of the study related to challenges in engaging an adequate diversity and number of appropriate stakeholders, particularly members of the public, in aggregating the diverse set of responses into coherent categories representative of the participants' perspectives and in adequately representing the diversity of submitted responses while ensuring research priorities on the final list are sufficiently actionable to guide resource allocation.ConclusionsThe top 10 identified research priorities have the potential to guide research resource allocation, supporting funding agencies and initiatives to promote global primary care research and practice.
| S-EPMC6201922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe measurement of physical fitness has a history that dates back nearly 200 years. Recently, there has been an increase in international research and surveillance on physical fitness creating a need for setting international priorities that could help guide future efforts.ObjectiveThis study aimed to produce a list of the top 10 international priorities for research and surveillance on physical fitness among children and adolescents.MethodsUsing a twin-panel Delphi method, two independent panels consisting of 46 international experts were identified (panel 1 = 28, panel 2 = 18). The panel participants were asked to list up to five priorities for research or surveillance (round 1), and then rated the items from their own panel on a 5-point Likert scale of importance (round 2). In round 3, experts were asked to rate the priorities identified by the other panel.ResultsThere was strong between-panel agreement (panel 1: rs = 0.76, p < 0.01; panel 2: rs = 0.77, p < 0.01) in the priorities identified. The list of the final top 10 priorities included (i) "conduct longitudinal studies to assess changes in fitness and associations with health". This was followed by (ii) "use fitness surveillance to inform decision making", and (iii) "implement regular and consistent international/national fitness surveys using common measures".ConclusionsThe priorities identified in this study provide guidance for future international collaborations and research efforts on the physical fitness of children and adolescents over the next decade and beyond.
| S-EPMC9399984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively.ObjectiveWe sought to systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility.MethodsWe convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: (1) Population Science, (2) Basic and Translational Sciences, (3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and (4) Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey, and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0 to 100 scale.ResultsThe panel generated 98 statements across the 4 anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic and Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0 to 95.0 and from 40.0 to 90.0, respectively. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize postanaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices.ConclusionsWe identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis.
| S-EPMC8837706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePituitary surgery is the mainstay treatment for most pituitary adenomas, but many questions remain about perioperative and long-term management and outcomes. This study aimed to identify the most pressing research priorities in pituitary surgery with input from patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals.MethodsAn initial survey of patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals assembled priorities related to preoperative care, surgical techniques, and postoperative management in pituitary surgery. Priorities were thematically grouped into summary priorities, and those answered by existing evidence were omitted following a literature review. An interim survey asked patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals to select their top 10 priorities from the remaining list. The highest-ranked priorities advanced to a consensus meeting, where the top 10 questions were prioritized.ResultsIn the initial survey, 147 participants-60.5% of whom were patients, caregivers, or patient support group representatives-submitted 785 priorities, which were then condensed into 52 summary priorities. After a literature review, 33 unanswered priorities were included in the interim survey, completed by 155 respondents, of whom 54.2% were patients, caregivers, or patient support group representatives. The top-ranked priorities were discussed by 14 participants (7 patients and 7 healthcare professionals) during a consensus meeting. The top 10 priorities covered a variety of themes including enhancing diagnosis and management of pituitary adenomas, advancing surgical techniques and technologies, optimizing the prediction of outcomes and complications, and improving patient support and follow-up.ConclusionsThe top 10 research priorities in pituitary surgery aim to align researchers and direct funding in order to maximize impact and champion patient representation.
| S-EPMC11882698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Soon after its identification, norovirus (NoV) has been indicated as one of the most common causes of outbreaks of acute gastroenteritis (AGE) and sporadic acute diarrhea episodes in subjects of any age. In 2016 the World Health Organization stated that the development of a NoV vaccine should be considered an absolute priority. Unfortunately, the development of an effective NoV vaccine has proven extremely difficult, and only in recent years, some preparations have been tested in humans in advanced clinical trials. In this paper, reasons that justify efforts to develop a NoV vaccine, difficulties encountered during NoV vaccine development, and NoV vaccine candidates will be discussed. In recent years, identification of some NoV antigens that alone or in combination with other viral antigens can induce a potentially protective immune response has led to the development of a large series of preparations that seem capable of coping with the problems related to NoV infection. Epidemiological and immunological studies have shown that multivalent vaccines, including both GI and GII NoV, are the only solution to induce sufficiently broad protection. However, even if the road to formulation of an effective and safe NoV vaccine seems to be definitively traced, many problems still need to be solved before the total burden of NoV infections can be adequately controlled. Whether currently available vaccines are able to protect against all the heterologous NoV strains and the variants of the most common serotypes that frequently emerge and cause outbreaks must be defined. Moreover, as performed clinical trials have mainly enrolled adults, it is mandatory to know whether vaccines are effective in all age groups, including younger children. Finally, we must know the immune response of immunocompromised patients and the duration of protection induced by NoV vaccines. Only when all these problems have been solved will it be possible to establish an effective immunization schedule against NoV infection and calculate whether systematic vaccination can be cost effective.
| S-EPMC7358258 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Education in regional anaesthesia covers several complex and diverse areas, from theoretical aspects to procedural skills, professional behaviours, simulation, curriculum design and assessment. The objectives of this study were to summarise these topics and to prioritise these topics in order of research importance. DESIGN:Electronic structured Delphi questionnaire over three rounds. SETTING:International. PARTICIPANTS:38 experts in regional anaesthesia education and training, identified through the American Society of Regional Anesthesia Education Special Interest Group research collaboration. RESULTS:82 topics were identified and ranked in order of prioritisation. Topics were categorised into themes of simulation, curriculum, knowledge translation, assessment of skills, research methodology, equipment and motor skills. Thirteen topics were ranked as essential research priority, with four topics each on simulation and curriculum, three topics on knowledge translation, and one topic each on methodology and assessment. CONCLUSIONS:Researchers and educators can use these identified topics to assist in planning and structuring their research and training in regional anaesthesia education.
| S-EPMC6609036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify and prioritize the top 10 research questions for PsA.MethodsThe British Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium (BritPACT) formed a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) comprising of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians, supported by the James Lind Alliance (JLA). This PSP followed the established three-stage JLA process: first, an online survey of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians to identify PsA questions, asking, 'What do you think are the most important unanswered questions in psoriatic arthritis research?' The questions were checked against existing evidence to establish 'true uncertainties' and grouped as 'indicative questions' reflecting the overarching themes. Then a second online survey ranked the 'true uncertainties' by importance. Finally, a workshop including people living with PsA and clinician stakeholders finalized the top 10 research priorities.ResultsThe initial survey attracted 317 respondents (69% people living with PsA, 15% carers), with 988 questions. This generated 46 indicative questions. In the second survey, 422 respondents (78% people living with PsA, 4% carers) prioritized these. Eighteen questions were taken forward to the final online workshop. The top unanswered PsA research question was 'What is the best strategy for managing patients with psoriatic arthritis including non-drug and drug treatments?' Other top 10 priorities covered diagnosis, prognosis, outcome assessment, flares, comorbidities and other aspects of treatment (https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk).ConclusionThe top 10 priorities will guide PsA research and enable PsA researchers and those who fund research to know the most important questions for people living with PsA.
| S-EPMC10393438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent cause of cancer death in the word. Which aspects of research into CRC should be accorded the highest priority remains unclear, because relevant stakeholders, such as patients, nurses, and physicians, played hardly any part in the development of research projects. The goal in forming the CRC Priority-Setting Partnership (PSP) was to bring all relevant stakeholders together to identify and prioritize unresolved research questions regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of CRC.MethodsThe CRC PSP worked in cooperation with the British James Lind Alliance. An initial nationwide survey was conducted, and evidence uncertainties were collected, categorized, summarized, and compared with available evidence from the literature. The as-yet unresolved questions were (provisionally) ranked in a second national wide survey, and at a concluding consensus workshop all stakeholders came together to finalize the rankings in a nominal group process and compile a top 10 list.ResultsIn the first survey (34% patients, 51% healthcare professionals, 15% unknown), 1102 submissions were made. After exclusion of duplicates and previously resolved questions, 66 topics were then ranked in the second survey (56% patients, 39% healthcare professionals, 5% unknown). This interim ranking process revealed distinct differences between relatives and healthcare professionals. The final top 10 list compiled at the consensus workshop covers a wide area of research topics.ConclusionAll relevant stakeholders in the CRC PSP worked together to identify and prioritize the top 10 evidence uncertainties. The results give researchers and funding bodies the opportunity to address the most patient-relevant research projects. It is the first detailed description of a PSP in Germany, and the first PSP on CRC care worldwide.
| S-EPMC10020251 | biostudies-literature