O-100 Recurrent implantation failure
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Study question How should Recurrent Implantation Failure (RIF) in ART patients be defined and managed? Summary answer This is the first ESHRE good practice recommendations paper providing a definition for RIF and guidance on how to investigate causes and contributing factors and how to improve the chances of a pregnancy. What is known already RIF is a challenge in the ART Clinic, with a multitude of investigations and interventions offered and applied in clinical practice, often without biological rational or unequivocal evidence of benefit. Study design, size, duration This recommendations document was developed according to a predefined methodology for ESHRE good practice recommendations. Recommendations are supported by data from the literature, if available, the results of a previously published survey on clinical practice in RIF and the expertise of the working group. A literature search was performed in PubMed and Cochrane focusing on “recurrent reproductive failure", "recurrent implantation failure" and "repeated implantation failure“. Participants/materials, setting, methods The ESHRE RIF Working Group included 8 members representing the ESHRE Special Interest Groups of Implantation and Early Pregnancy, Reproductive Endocrinology, and Embryology, and completed with an independent chair and an expert in statistics. The recommendations for clinical practice were formulated based on the expert opinion of the Working Group, while taking into consideration the published data and results of the survey on uptake in clinical practice. The draft document was then opened for online peer review to ESHRE members and revised in light of the comments received. Main results and the role of chance RIF describes the scenario in which the transfer of embryos considered to be viable has failed to result in a positive pregnancy test sufficiently often in a specific patient to warrant consideration of further investigations and/or interventions. The recommended threshold for the cumulative predicted chance of implantation to identify RIF for the purposes of initiating further investigation is 60%. When a couple have not had a successful implantation by a certain number of embryo transfers and the cumulative predicted chance of implantation associated with that number is greater than 60%, then they should be counselled on further investigation and/or treatment options. This term defines clinical RIF for which further actions should be considered. Nineteen recommendations were formulated on investigations when RIF is suspected, and 13 on interventions. Limitations, reason for caution While awaiting the results of further studies and trials, the ESHRE Working group recommends identifying of RIF based on the chance of successful implantation for the individual patient or couple and to restrict investigations and treatments to those supported by a clear rationale and data indicating their likely benefit. Wider implications of the findings This paper provides good practice advise, but also highlights the investigations and interventions that need further research. This research, when well-conducted, will be key to making progress in the clinical management of RIF. Study funding and competing interest(s) Yes. The other authors had nothing to disclose.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,005 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».