Selma Mourad

Information provision in fertility care: a call for improvement

BACKGROUND Adequate information provision is a crucial dimension of high-quality fertility care. Clinical practice guidelines containing consensus-based recommendations may standardize practice between settings. This study was designed for three purposes: (i) to assess actual adherence to recommendations on information provision, (ii) to measure patient satisfaction with current practice and (iii) to analyse how variation in adherence relates to the characteristics of patients and clinics. METHODS All recommendations concerning patient information were extracted from 10 national fertility guidelines and edited into a patient questionnaire. Additional questions concerning patient satisfaction and potential determinants of information provision at patient level were included. A total of 2698 couples from 16 clinics were invited to participate. A professionals questionnaire was sent to all gynaecologists to gather potential determinants at clinic level. Multilevel regression analysis was performed to identify the determinants of information provision. RESULTS A total of 1499 couples (56%) participated. The percentage of couples who reported to have received complete information varied between recommendations from 10 to 96% (mean 57%). Overall, 94% of couples were satisfied with fertility services. The use of checklists for information provision, the presence of obstetrics/gynaecology residents and specialized nursing personnel, and higher patient anxiety scores were significantly associated (P < 0.05) with higher levels of information received. CONCLUSIONS Despite the possibility of recall bias in questionnaire studies and observed high patient satisfaction with fertility services, we conclude that information provision for infertile couples is currently poor and in need of improvement. This could easily be procured by, for example, the use of information checklists.

Management of ovarian stimulation for IVF: narrative review of evidence provided for World Health Organization guidance

In this paper, a review of evidence provided to the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline development, who prepare global guidance on the management of ovarian stimulation for women undergoing IVF, is presented. The purpose of ovarian stimulation is to facilitate retrieval of multiple oocytes during a single IVF cycle. Availability of multiple oocytes compensates for inefficiencies in subsequent stages of the cycle, which include oocyte maturation, IVF, embryo culture, embryo transfer, and implantation. Multiple embryos can be transferred in most women, and spare embryos can be frozen to allow for future chances of pregnancy without the need for repeated ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval. Our evidence synthesis team addressed 10 clinical questions on management of ovarian stimulation for IVF, prepared a narrative review of the evidence and drafted recommendations to be considered through WHO guideline development processes. Our main outcome measures were live birth, clinical pregnancy, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Clinical trial registration in fertility trials – a case for improvement?

STUDY QUESTION What is the prevalence and source of prospectively and retrospectively registered and unregistered trials in fertility treatments? SUMMARY ANSWER Trial registration is low and does not appear to be changing over the 5 years studied. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Trial registration is associated with lower risk of bias than in unregistered trials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Groups specialised register was searched on 5 November 2015 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2010 to December 2014. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Eligible trials included randomised women or men for fertility treatments, were published in full text, and written in English. Two reviewers independently assessed trial registration status for each trial, by searching the publication, trial registries, and by contacting the original authors. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE Of 693 eligible RCTS, only 44% were registered trials. Of 309 registered trials, 21.7% were prospectively registered, 15.8% were registered within 6 months of first patient enrolment and 62.5% were retrospectively registered trials. Prospective trial registration by country varied from 0% to 100%. The highest frequency of prospective trial registration amongst the top 10 publishing countries was 31% in the Netherlands. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Only English language trials were included in this review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Prospective trial registration is still low. Journals, funders and ethics committees could have a greater role to increase trial registration. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS University of Auckland. No competing interests.