MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4237322338 · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.11.014

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

2020· review· en· W4237322338 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, Alan Fincham, Sebastian Franik, Linda C. Giudice, Elizabeth 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, Helen E 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, A.Y. Wang, Rui Wang, Jack Wilkinson, KHF Wong, Tze Yoong Wong, Cindy Farquhar, Hisham Alahwany, Ofra Balaban, Yusuf Beebeejaun, Jacky Boivin, Jan Bosteels, 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, 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

RevueFertility and Sterility · 2020
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Health and Technologies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesMedical Research CouncilMaurice and Phyllis Paykel TrustUniversidade de LisboaNordic Pharma GroupKhon Kaen UniversityUniversity of TorontoMonash UniversityVifor PharmaNational Foundation for the DeafCardiff UniversityUniversity of AucklandAuckland Medical Research FoundationRoyal Society Te ApārangiWellbeing of WomenNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchDartmouth CollegeUniversità degli Studi di FerraraNational Health and Medical Research CouncilUniversidade de São PauloCairo UniversityMerck KGaAAmsterdam University Medical CentersUniversity of WarwickLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of Minnesota
Mots-clésInfertilityGynecologyMedicinePolitical scienceBiologyPregnancy

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 were 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 judgement, 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. Geoffrey Adamson 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. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Andrew Horne 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. Louise Hull reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. Neil Johnson reports research sponsorship from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Craig Niederberger 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. Jane Stewart 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. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their ‘traffic light' system for infertility treatment ‘add-ons'. Lan Vuong 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 Not applicable.

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)0,426
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,397
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,426
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,708

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,4260,397
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,005
Bibliométrie0,0100,009
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,006
Communication savante0,0110,012
Science ouverte0,0050,019
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,006
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 Opus0,413
Tête enseignante GPT0,514
Écart entre enseignants0,101 · 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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations73
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFertility and SterilityMême sujetReproductive Health and TechnologiesTravaux en français237 207