Project description:Study questionWhat is the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature?Summary answerThe guideline development group formulated 77 recommendations answering 18 key questions on investigations and treatments for RPL, and on how care should be organized.What is known alreadyA previous guideline for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage was published in 2006 and is in need of an update.Study design size durationThe guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 31 March 2017 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes.Participants/materials setting methodsBased on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee.Main results and the role of chanceThe guideline provides 38 recommendations on risk factors, prevention and investigations in couples with RPL, and 39 recommendations on treatments. These include 60 evidence-based recommendations - of which 31 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional - and 17 good practice points. The evidence supporting investigations and treatment of couples with RPL is limited and of moderate quality. Of the evidence-based recommendations, only 10 (16.3%) were supported by moderate quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (35 recommendations: 57.4%), or very low quality evidence (16 recommendations: 26.2%). There were no recommendations based on high quality evidence. Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL.Limitations reasons for cautionSeveral investigations and treatments are offered to couples with RPL, but most of them are not well studied. For most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised.Wider implications of the findingsThe guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. One of the most important consequences of the limited evidence is the absence of evidence for a definition of RPL.Study funding/competing interestsThe guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. J.E. reports position funding from CARE Fertility. S.L. reports position funding from SpermComet Ltd. S.M. reports research grants, consulting and speaker's fees from GSK, BMS/Pfizer, Sanquin, Aspen, Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. S.Q. reports speaker's fees from Ferring. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Project description:BackgroundClinical guidelines are intended to improve healthcare. However, even if guidelines are excellent, their implementation is not assured. In subfertility care, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) guidelines have been inventoried, and their methodological quality has been assessed. To improve the impact of the ESHRE guidelines and to improve European subfertility care, it is important to optimise the implementability of guidelines. We therefore investigated the implementation barriers of the ESHRE guideline with the best methodological quality and evaluated the used instrument for usability and feasibility.MethodsWe reviewed the ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis to assess its implementability. We used an electronic version of the guideline implementability appraisal (eGLIA) instrument. This eGLIA tool consists of 31 questions grouped into 10 dimensions. Seven items address the guideline as a whole, and 24 items assess the individual recommendations in the guideline. The eGLIA instrument identifies factors that influence the implementability of the guideline recommendations. These factors can be divided into facilitators that promote implementation and barriers that oppose implementation. A panel of 10 experts from three European countries appraised all 36 recommendations of the guideline. They discussed discrepancies in a teleconference and completed a questionnaire to evaluate the ease of use and overall utility of the eGLIA instrument.ResultsTwo of the 36 guideline recommendations were straightforward to implement. Five recommendations were considered simply statements because they contained no actions. The remaining 29 recommendations were implementable with some adjustments. We found facilitators of the guideline implementability in the quality of decidability, presentation and formatting, apparent validity, and novelty or innovation of the recommendations. Vaguely defined actions, lack of facilities, immeasurable outcomes, and inflexibility within the recommendations formed barriers to implementation. The eGLIA instrument was generally useful and easy to use. However, assessment with the eGLIA instrument is very time-consuming.ConclusionsThe ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis could be improved to facilitate its implementation in daily practice. The eGLIA instrument is a helpful tool for identifying obstacles to implementation of a guideline. However, we recommend a concise version of this instrument.

Project description:Study questionWhat are the trends and developments in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in 2018 as compared to previous years?Summary answerThe main trends observed in this 21st dataset on PGT are that the implementation of trophectoderm biopsy with comprehensive whole-genome testing is most often applied for PGT-A and concurrent PGT-M/SR/A, while for PGT-M and PGT-SR, single-cell testing with PCR and FISH still prevail.What is known alreadySince it was established in 1997, the ESHRE PGT Consortium has been collecting and analysing data from mainly European PGT centres. To date, 20 datasets and an overview of the first 10 years of data collections have been published.Study design size durationThe data for PGT analyses performed between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018 with a 2-year follow-up after analysis were provided by participating centres on a voluntary basis. Data were collected using an online platform, which is based on genetic analysis and has been in use since 2016.Participants/materials setting methodsData on biopsy method, diagnostic technology, and clinical outcome were submitted by 44 centres. Records with analyses for more than one PGT for monogenic disorders (PGT-M) and/or PGT for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR), or with inconsistent data regarding the PGT modality, were excluded. All transfers performed within 2 years after the analysis were included, enabling the calculation of cumulative pregnancy rates. Data analysis, calculations, and preparation of figures and tables were carried out by expert co-authors.Main results and the role of chanceThe current data collection from 2018 covers a total of 1388 analyses for PGT-M, 462 analyses for PGT-SR, 3003 analyses for PGT for aneuploidies (PGT-A), and 338 analyses for concurrent PGT-M/SR with PGT-A.The application of blastocyst biopsy is gradually rising for PGT-M (from 19% in 2016-2017 to 33% in 2018), is status quo for PGT-SR (from 30% in 2016-2017 to 33% in 2018) and has become the most used biopsy stage for PGT-A (from 87% in 2016-2017 to 98% in 2018) and for concurrent PGT-M/SR with PGT-A (96%). The use of comprehensive, whole-genome amplification (WGA)-based diagnostic technology showed a small decrease for PGT-M (from 15% in 2016-2017 to 12% in 2018) and for PGT-SR (from 50% in 2016-2017 to 44% in 2018). Comprehensive testing was, however, the main technology for PGT-A (from 93% in 2016-2017 to 98% in 2018). WGA-based testing was also widely used for concurrent PGT-M/SR with PGT-A, as a standalone technique (74%) or in combination with PCR or FISH (24%). Trophectoderm biopsy and comprehensive testing strategies are linked with higher diagnostic efficiencies and improved clinical outcomes per embryo transfer.Limitations reasons for cautionThe findings apply to the data submitted by 44 participating centres and do not represent worldwide trends in PGT. Details on the health of babies born were not provided in this manuscript.Wider implications of the findingsThe Consortium datasets provide a valuable resource for following trends in PGT practice.Study funding/competing interestsThe study has no external funding, and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests declared.Trial registration numberN/A.

Dataset Information

ESHRE guideline: endometriosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets