MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4256278690 · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.11.013

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

2020· article· en· W4256278690 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
James MN Duffy, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Magdalena Bofill, Barbara Collura, Cate Curtis, J.L.H. Evers, Linda C. Giudice, Roy G. Farquharson, Sebastian Franik, Martha Hickey, M. Louise Hull, Vanessa Jordan, Yacoub Khalaf, Richard S. Legro, Sarah Lensen, D. Mavrelos, Ben W. Mol, Craig Niederberger, Ernest Hung Yu Ng, Lucian Pușcașiu, Sjoerd Repping, Ippokratis Sarris, Marian Showell, Annika Strandell, Andy Vail, Madelon van Wely, M Vercoe, Lan N. Vuong, A.Y. Wang, Rui Wang, Jack Wilkinson, Mohamed Youssef, Cindy Farquhar, Ahmed M Abou-Setta, Juan J. Aguilera, Hisham Alahwany, Oluseyi O.A. Atanda, Eva Balkenende, Kurt T. Barnhart, Yusuf Beebeejaun, Megan Black, Georgina Chambers, Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, Javier Crosby, Irene Cuevas, Arianna D’Angelo, Danielle D. Dubois, Kirsten Duckitt, Carlos García Encinas, Marie-Odile Gerval, Nhu H. Giang, Ahmed Gibreel, Lynda J. Gingel, Elizabeth Glanville, Demián Glujovsky, Ingrid Granne, Georg Griesinger, Devashana Gupta Repromed, Zeinab Hamzehgardeshi, Martin Hirsch, Marcos Horton, Shikha Jain, Marta J. Perez, Claire Jones, Mohan S. Kamath, J.M.L. Knijnenburg, Elena Kostova, Antonio La Marca, Tien Khac Le, Arthur Leader, Brigitte Leeviers, Jian Li Chinese, Olabisi Loto, Karen L. Marks, Rodrigo M. Martinez-Vazquez, Alison McTavish, David J. Mills, R. Nair, Dung Thi Phuong Nguyen, Anne-Sophie Otter, Allan Pacey, Satu Rautakallio-Hokkanen, Lynn Sadler, Peggy Sagle, Juan-Enrique Schwarze, Heather Shapiro, Joe Leigh Simpson, Charalampos Siristatidis, Akanksha Sood, C. Strawbridge, Helen L. Torrance, Cẩm Tú Trần, Emma L. Votteler, Chi Chiu Wang, Andrew Watson, Menem Yossry

Notice bibliographique

RevueFertility and Sterility · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDelphi Technique in Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMansoura UniversityUniversity of AucklandChinese University of Hong KongMedical Research CouncilMazandaran University of Medical SciencesUniversity of WaikatoMaurice and Phyllis Paykel TrustChristian Medical College, VelloreAuckland District Health BoardFlorida International UniversityUniversity of OxfordNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of AberdeenUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New South WalesUniversity of AlbertaUniversitätsspital ZürichRoyal Society Te ApārangiUniversiteit van AmsterdamOttawa Hospital Research InstituteUniversity College LondonChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Mots-clésGuidelineMedicineMEDLINEMedical educationSystematic reviewSet (abstract data type)Family medicinePsychologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Study Question Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? Summary Answer Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements, and a standardized reporting table have been developed. What is Known Already Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. Study Design, Size, Duration Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. Main Results and the Role of Chance Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. Limitations, Reasons for Caution We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. Wider Implications of the Findings A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms, and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. Study Funding/Competing Interest(s) This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. 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. Craig Niederberger reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. 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 work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. Trial Registration Number Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

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)0,743
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,775
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: Méthodes
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,257
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,317

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,7430,775
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0060,010
Bibliométrie0,0220,018
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,009
Communication savante0,0140,018
Science ouverte0,0120,023
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,012
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,002

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 Opus0,864
Tête enseignante GPT0,600
Écart entre enseignants0,265 · 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

Citations77
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFertility and SterilityMême sujetDelphi Technique in ResearchTravaux en français237 207