2012年至2023年发表的1425项不孕症试验的试验特征、地理分布和选择的方法学问题:系统回顾

IF 8.3 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Human reproduction open Pub Date : 2025-01-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/hropen/hoaf004
Qian Feng, Wanlin Li, James Crispin, Salvatore Longobardi, Thomas D'Hooghe, Ben W Mol, Wentao Li
{"title":"2012年至2023年发表的1425项不孕症试验的试验特征、地理分布和选择的方法学问题:系统回顾","authors":"Qian Feng, Wanlin Li, James Crispin, Salvatore Longobardi, Thomas D'Hooghe, Ben W Mol, Wentao Li","doi":"10.1093/hropen/hoaf004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study question: </strong>What are the trial characteristics, geographic distribution, and selected methodological issues of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in infertility published from 2012 to 2023?</p><p><strong>Summary answer: </strong>Of the 1425 infertility RCTs, over two-thirds focused on IVF, nearly two-fifths did not use pregnancy or live birth as the primary outcome, a third lacked a primary outcome, a half were unregistered, and just over half were conducted in China (22%), Iran (20%), or Egypt (10%).</p><p><strong>What is known already: </strong>RCTs are the main source of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. Knowledge about RCTs in infertility from the recent past will help to pinpoint research gaps and prioritize the future research agenda. Here, we aim to present a descriptive analysis of trial characteristics, geographic distribution, and selected methodological issues in infertility trials published in the last decade.</p><p><strong>Study design size duration: </strong>This is a systematic review. We systematically searched Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Central for RCTs in infertility from January 2012 to August 2023. RCTs involving subfertile women and women who reported pregnancy endpoints were eligible, while conference abstracts or secondary analyses were not. We did not limit our search based on the language of the articles.</p><p><strong>Participants/materials setting methods: </strong>The full articles were text-mined and manually extracted for the description of trials' characteristics (e.g. sample size, blinding method, types of intervention), the country where the patients were recruited, and methodological issues (trial registrations and specification of primary outcomes). We extracted funding statements from Dimensions, a literature database chosen for its comprehensive and robust metadata. Gross domestic product (GDP) data were obtained from the United Nations' official website. The accuracy of extracted data was validated in a random sample of 50 articles, and false positivity and false negativity were all at or below 8%. We used descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages to illustrate the overall and temporal trends.</p><p><strong>Main results and the role of chance: </strong>Among 8757 records, we found 1425 eligible RCTs, with a median sample size of 140, and 33.3% had a sample size <100. Most (69.6%) of the trials focused on IVF, with the rest focusing on ovulation induction (12.4%), intrauterine insemination (10.6%), surgeries (4.8%), or other interventions (2.6%). Regarding the geographic distribution, China (n = 310), Iran (n = 284), and Egypt (n = 138) contributed to 51% of the RCTs, followed by Turkey (n = 82), India (n = 71), and the USA (n = 69); mainland Europe produced 343 trials. Ranked by publications of trials per trillion GDP, Greece had the most papers with 4.6, followed by Iraq at 3.9, and Iran at 2.5. Regarding trial registration, 47.8% of trials were unregistered, the proportion of studies that were unregistered halved from 70.0% in 2012 to 34.6% in 2022. Of all RCTs, 37.6% had primary outcomes unspecified; the proportion of trials specifying primary outcomes increased from 49.5% in 2012 to 61.4% in 2022. The proportion of trials which declared receiving no funding was 76.9%.</p><p><strong>Limitations reasons for caution: </strong>We primarily used text mining for data extraction. Despite optimizing the algorithm to identify all outcome definitions and manually curating the extracted data, there were inaccuracies in data extraction; however, the false positivity and false negativity of data extraction were all at or below 8%. Also, we focused on trials reporting pregnancy outcomes, as these are of primary interest to patients and carry significant implications on clinical practice. However, we acknowledge that early-stage trials with only upstream endpoints also play an important role and should be considered when evaluating the full spectrum of infertility trials. Finally, we only included published RCTs and hence, our results cannot be extrapolated to unpublished RCTs.</p><p><strong>Wider implications of the findings: </strong>The domination of RCTs on IVF calls for a reconsideration of other topics to be studied and a realignment of research priorities. The imbalanced geographic distribution of infertility trials raises questions about the generalizability of study results and equity in the distribution of healthcare resources. The prevalence of trials without registration or primary outcomes specified highlights the imperative to improve trial design and reporting quality. Encouragingly, the improving trial registrations suggest the enforcement of trial registrations from the journals is effective.</p><p><strong>Study funding/competing interests: </strong>B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). W.T.L. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GTN2016729). W.L.L. reports receiving a PhD scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. Q.F. reports receiving a PhD scholarship from Merck. B.W.M. reports receiving consultancy fees, travel support, and research funding from Merck; consultancy fees from Organon and Norgine; and stock ownership in ObsEva. T.D.H and S.L. are employees of Merck. W.T.L., W.L.L., and J.C. report no conflicts of interest.</p><p><strong>Registration number: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024498624.</p>","PeriodicalId":73264,"journal":{"name":"Human reproduction open","volume":"2025 1","pages":"hoaf004"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11842059/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trial characteristics, geographic distribution, and selected methodological issues of 1425 infertility trials published from 2012 to 2023: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Qian Feng, Wanlin Li, James Crispin, Salvatore Longobardi, Thomas D'Hooghe, Ben W Mol, Wentao Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/hropen/hoaf004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study question: </strong>What are the trial characteristics, geographic distribution, and selected methodological issues of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in infertility published from 2012 to 2023?</p><p><strong>Summary answer: </strong>Of the 1425 infertility RCTs, over two-thirds focused on IVF, nearly two-fifths did not use pregnancy or live birth as the primary outcome, a third lacked a primary outcome, a half were unregistered, and just over half were conducted in China (22%), Iran (20%), or Egypt (10%).</p><p><strong>What is known already: </strong>RCTs are the main source of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. Knowledge about RCTs in infertility from the recent past will help to pinpoint research gaps and prioritize the future research agenda. Here, we aim to present a descriptive analysis of trial characteristics, geographic distribution, and selected methodological issues in infertility trials published in the last decade.</p><p><strong>Study design size duration: </strong>This is a systematic review. We systematically searched Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Central for RCTs in infertility from January 2012 to August 2023. RCTs involving subfertile women and women who reported pregnancy endpoints were eligible, while conference abstracts or secondary analyses were not. We did not limit our search based on the language of the articles.</p><p><strong>Participants/materials setting methods: </strong>The full articles were text-mined and manually extracted for the description of trials' characteristics (e.g. sample size, blinding method, types of intervention), the country where the patients were recruited, and methodological issues (trial registrations and specification of primary outcomes). We extracted funding statements from Dimensions, a literature database chosen for its comprehensive and robust metadata. Gross domestic product (GDP) data were obtained from the United Nations' official website. The accuracy of extracted data was validated in a random sample of 50 articles, and false positivity and false negativity were all at or below 8%. We used descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages to illustrate the overall and temporal trends.</p><p><strong>Main results and the role of chance: </strong>Among 8757 records, we found 1425 eligible RCTs, with a median sample size of 140, and 33.3% had a sample size <100. Most (69.6%) of the trials focused on IVF, with the rest focusing on ovulation induction (12.4%), intrauterine insemination (10.6%), surgeries (4.8%), or other interventions (2.6%). Regarding the geographic distribution, China (n = 310), Iran (n = 284), and Egypt (n = 138) contributed to 51% of the RCTs, followed by Turkey (n = 82), India (n = 71), and the USA (n = 69); mainland Europe produced 343 trials. Ranked by publications of trials per trillion GDP, Greece had the most papers with 4.6, followed by Iraq at 3.9, and Iran at 2.5. Regarding trial registration, 47.8% of trials were unregistered, the proportion of studies that were unregistered halved from 70.0% in 2012 to 34.6% in 2022. Of all RCTs, 37.6% had primary outcomes unspecified; the proportion of trials specifying primary outcomes increased from 49.5% in 2012 to 61.4% in 2022. The proportion of trials which declared receiving no funding was 76.9%.</p><p><strong>Limitations reasons for caution: </strong>We primarily used text mining for data extraction. Despite optimizing the algorithm to identify all outcome definitions and manually curating the extracted data, there were inaccuracies in data extraction; however, the false positivity and false negativity of data extraction were all at or below 8%. Also, we focused on trials reporting pregnancy outcomes, as these are of primary interest to patients and carry significant implications on clinical practice. However, we acknowledge that early-stage trials with only upstream endpoints also play an important role and should be considered when evaluating the full spectrum of infertility trials. Finally, we only included published RCTs and hence, our results cannot be extrapolated to unpublished RCTs.</p><p><strong>Wider implications of the findings: </strong>The domination of RCTs on IVF calls for a reconsideration of other topics to be studied and a realignment of research priorities. The imbalanced geographic distribution of infertility trials raises questions about the generalizability of study results and equity in the distribution of healthcare resources. The prevalence of trials without registration or primary outcomes specified highlights the imperative to improve trial design and reporting quality. Encouragingly, the improving trial registrations suggest the enforcement of trial registrations from the journals is effective.</p><p><strong>Study funding/competing interests: </strong>B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). W.T.L. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GTN2016729). W.L.L. reports receiving a PhD scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. Q.F. reports receiving a PhD scholarship from Merck. B.W.M. reports receiving consultancy fees, travel support, and research funding from Merck; consultancy fees from Organon and Norgine; and stock ownership in ObsEva. T.D.H and S.L. are employees of Merck. W.T.L., W.L.L., and J.C. report no conflicts of interest.</p><p><strong>Registration number: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024498624.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73264,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human reproduction open\",\"volume\":\"2025 1\",\"pages\":\"hoaf004\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11842059/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human reproduction open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaf004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human reproduction open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaf004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究问题:2012年至2023年发表的不孕症随机对照试验(rct)的试验特征、地理分布和选择的方法学问题是什么?总结回答:在1425项不孕症随机对照试验中,超过三分之二的研究重点是体外受精,近五分之二的研究没有将怀孕或活产作为主要结果,三分之一的研究缺乏主要结果,一半的研究未登记,超过一半的研究在中国(22%)、伊朗(20%)或埃及(10%)进行。已知情况:随机对照试验是干预措施有效性的主要证据来源。最近关于不孕症随机对照试验的知识将有助于查明研究差距并确定未来研究议程的优先顺序。在这里,我们的目的是提出一个描述性分析的试验特点,地理分布,并选择在过去十年发表的不孕症试验的方法学问题。研究设计规模、持续时间:这是一项系统评价。我们系统地检索了Embase、Medline和Cochrane Central从2012年1月到2023年8月的不孕症rct。包括低生育能力妇女和报告妊娠终点的妇女的随机对照试验是合格的,而会议摘要或二次分析则不合格。我们没有根据文章的语言来限制我们的搜索。参与者/材料设置方法:对全文进行文本挖掘和人工提取,以描述试验的特征(例如样本量、盲法、干预类型)、招募患者的国家和方法学问题(试验注册和主要结果的说明)。我们从Dimensions中提取资金报表,这是一个文献数据库,因其全面而稳健的元数据而被选中。国内生产总值(GDP)数据来自联合国官方网站。在50篇文章的随机样本中验证了提取数据的准确性,假阳性和假阴性均在8%或以下。我们使用描述性统计,包括频率和百分比来说明总体和时间趋势。主要结果和偶然性的作用:在8757条记录中,我们发现了1425个符合条件的rct,中位数样本量为140,其中33.3%有样本量限制原因:我们主要使用文本挖掘进行数据提取。尽管优化了算法以识别所有结果定义并手动整理提取的数据,但数据提取中存在不准确性;然而,数据提取的假阳性和假阴性都在8%或以下。此外,我们关注报告妊娠结局的试验,因为这些是患者的主要兴趣,对临床实践具有重要意义。然而,我们承认只有上游终点的早期试验也起着重要作用,在评估不孕症试验的全谱时应予以考虑。最后,我们只纳入了已发表的随机对照试验,因此我们的结果不能外推到未发表的随机对照试验。研究结果的更广泛含义:在试管婴儿中,随机对照试验的主导地位要求重新考虑其他要研究的主题,并重新调整研究重点。不孕症试验的地理分布不平衡,对研究结果的普遍性和医疗资源分配的公平性提出了质疑。未注册或未指定主要结果的试验的普遍存在突出了改进试验设计和报告质量的必要性。令人鼓舞的是,越来越多的试验注册表明,从期刊强制执行试验注册是有效的。研究经费/竞争利益:B.W.M.由NHMRC研究者资助(GNT1176437)支持。w.t.l由NHMRC研究者资助(GTN2016729)。获中国国家留学基金委博士奖学金。q.f报告获得了默克公司的博士奖学金。B.W.M.报告从默克公司获得咨询费、差旅支持和研究经费;Organon和Norgine的咨询费;以及在ObsEva的股权。t.d.h.和S.L.都是默克公司的员工。wtl, wll和j。c报告没有利益冲突。注册号:普洛斯彼罗CRD42024498624。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trial characteristics, geographic distribution, and selected methodological issues of 1425 infertility trials published from 2012 to 2023: a systematic review.

Study question: What are the trial characteristics, geographic distribution, and selected methodological issues of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in infertility published from 2012 to 2023?

Summary answer: Of the 1425 infertility RCTs, over two-thirds focused on IVF, nearly two-fifths did not use pregnancy or live birth as the primary outcome, a third lacked a primary outcome, a half were unregistered, and just over half were conducted in China (22%), Iran (20%), or Egypt (10%).

What is known already: RCTs are the main source of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. Knowledge about RCTs in infertility from the recent past will help to pinpoint research gaps and prioritize the future research agenda. Here, we aim to present a descriptive analysis of trial characteristics, geographic distribution, and selected methodological issues in infertility trials published in the last decade.

Study design size duration: This is a systematic review. We systematically searched Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Central for RCTs in infertility from January 2012 to August 2023. RCTs involving subfertile women and women who reported pregnancy endpoints were eligible, while conference abstracts or secondary analyses were not. We did not limit our search based on the language of the articles.

Participants/materials setting methods: The full articles were text-mined and manually extracted for the description of trials' characteristics (e.g. sample size, blinding method, types of intervention), the country where the patients were recruited, and methodological issues (trial registrations and specification of primary outcomes). We extracted funding statements from Dimensions, a literature database chosen for its comprehensive and robust metadata. Gross domestic product (GDP) data were obtained from the United Nations' official website. The accuracy of extracted data was validated in a random sample of 50 articles, and false positivity and false negativity were all at or below 8%. We used descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages to illustrate the overall and temporal trends.

Main results and the role of chance: Among 8757 records, we found 1425 eligible RCTs, with a median sample size of 140, and 33.3% had a sample size <100. Most (69.6%) of the trials focused on IVF, with the rest focusing on ovulation induction (12.4%), intrauterine insemination (10.6%), surgeries (4.8%), or other interventions (2.6%). Regarding the geographic distribution, China (n = 310), Iran (n = 284), and Egypt (n = 138) contributed to 51% of the RCTs, followed by Turkey (n = 82), India (n = 71), and the USA (n = 69); mainland Europe produced 343 trials. Ranked by publications of trials per trillion GDP, Greece had the most papers with 4.6, followed by Iraq at 3.9, and Iran at 2.5. Regarding trial registration, 47.8% of trials were unregistered, the proportion of studies that were unregistered halved from 70.0% in 2012 to 34.6% in 2022. Of all RCTs, 37.6% had primary outcomes unspecified; the proportion of trials specifying primary outcomes increased from 49.5% in 2012 to 61.4% in 2022. The proportion of trials which declared receiving no funding was 76.9%.

Limitations reasons for caution: We primarily used text mining for data extraction. Despite optimizing the algorithm to identify all outcome definitions and manually curating the extracted data, there were inaccuracies in data extraction; however, the false positivity and false negativity of data extraction were all at or below 8%. Also, we focused on trials reporting pregnancy outcomes, as these are of primary interest to patients and carry significant implications on clinical practice. However, we acknowledge that early-stage trials with only upstream endpoints also play an important role and should be considered when evaluating the full spectrum of infertility trials. Finally, we only included published RCTs and hence, our results cannot be extrapolated to unpublished RCTs.

Wider implications of the findings: The domination of RCTs on IVF calls for a reconsideration of other topics to be studied and a realignment of research priorities. The imbalanced geographic distribution of infertility trials raises questions about the generalizability of study results and equity in the distribution of healthcare resources. The prevalence of trials without registration or primary outcomes specified highlights the imperative to improve trial design and reporting quality. Encouragingly, the improving trial registrations suggest the enforcement of trial registrations from the journals is effective.

Study funding/competing interests: B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). W.T.L. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GTN2016729). W.L.L. reports receiving a PhD scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. Q.F. reports receiving a PhD scholarship from Merck. B.W.M. reports receiving consultancy fees, travel support, and research funding from Merck; consultancy fees from Organon and Norgine; and stock ownership in ObsEva. T.D.H and S.L. are employees of Merck. W.T.L., W.L.L., and J.C. report no conflicts of interest.

Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42024498624.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信