MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3108972885 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaa242

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study  

2020· article· en· W3108972885 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
James MN Duffy, G. David Adamson, E A Benson, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Magdalena Bofill, Kate Brian, Barbara Collura, Cate Curtis, J.L.H. Evers, Roy G. Farquharson, A Fincham, Sebastian Franik, Linda C. Giudice, Elsa J. Glanville, Martha Hickey, Andrew W. Horne, M. Louise Hull, Neil Johnson, Vanessa Jordan, Yacoub Khalaf, J.M.L. Knijnenburg, Richard S. Legro, Sarah Lensen, James Mackenzie, D. Mavrelos, Ben W. Mol, Dean E. Morbeck, H Nagels, Ernest Hung Yu Ng, Craig Niederberger, A.S. Otter, Lucian Pușcașiu, Satu Rautakallio-Hokkanen, Lynn Sadler, Ippokratis Sarris, Marian Showell, Joshua D. Stewart, Annika Strandell, C. Strawbridge, Andy Vail, Madelon van Wely, M Vercoe, Lan N. Vuong, Alex Wang, Rui Wang, Jack Wilkinson, KHF Wong, Tien Yin Wong, Cindy Farquhar, Hisham Alahwany, Ofra Balaban, Faith Barton, Yusuf Beebeejaun, Jacky Boivin, Jan Bosteels, Carlos Calhaz–Jorge, Arianna D’Angelo, Leona F. Dann, Christopher J. De Jonge, Elyce du Mez, Rui Alberto Ferriani, Marie-Odile Gerval, Lynda J. Gingel, Ellen Greenblatt, Geraldine Hartshorne, Charlie Helliwell, Charlotte Helliwell, Lynda Hughes, Junyoung Jo, Jelena Jovanović, Ludwig Kiesel, Chumnan Kietpeerakool, Elena Kostova, Tansu Küçük, Rajesh Kumar, Robyn Lawrence, Nicole Lee, Katy E. Lindemann, Olabisi Loto, P. Lutjen, Michelle MacKinven, Mariano Mascarenhas, Helen McLaughlin, David J. Mills, Selma Mourad, Linh K. Nguyen, Robert J. Norman, Maja Olic, Kristine L. Overfield, Maria Parker-Harris, David G. Ramos, Aleksandra Rendulic, Sjoerd Repping, Roberta Rizzo, Paola Salacone, Catherine Saunders, Rinku Sengupta, Ioannis Sfontouris, Natalie R. Silverman, Helen L. Torrance, Eleonora Uphoff, Sarah A. Wakeman, Tewes Wischmann, Bryan Woodward, Mohamed Youssef

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Health and Technologies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Health and Medical Research CouncilKhon Kaen UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversidade de São PauloCairo UniversityMonash UniversityNational Foundation for the DeafUniversidade de LisboaUniversity of AucklandUniversity of MinnesotaMaurice and Phyllis Paykel TrustAuckland Medical Research FoundationUniversity of WarwickRoyal Society Te ApārangiNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchDartmouth CollegeMedical Research CouncilUniversità degli Studi di FerraraCardiff UniversityAmsterdam University Medical CentersLondon Health Sciences Centre
Mots-clésInterimInfertilityHealth careFertilitySystematic reviewFamily medicineMedicineMEDLINEGynecologyPolitical sciencePopulationEnvironmental healthLawPregnancy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: 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. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,419
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,445
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,581
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,717

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,4190,445
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,005
Bibliométrie0,0100,010
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,006
Communication savante0,0120,014
Science ouverte0,0050,019
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,363
Tête enseignante GPT0,478
Écart entre enseignants0,115 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
DomaineMéthodes
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations83
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman ReproductionMême sujetReproductive Health and TechnologiesTravaux en français237 207