MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4409468232 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaf039

A core outcome set for future male infertility research: development of an international consensus

2025· article· en· W4409468232 sur OpenAlexaff
Michael P. Rimmer, Ruth Howie, Richard A. Anderson, Christopher L. R. Barratt, Kurt T. Barnhart, Yusuf Beebeejaun, Ricardo Pimenta Bertolla, Pietro Bortoletto, Robert E. Brannigan, Astrid EP Cantineau, Ettore Caroppo, Barbara Collura, Kevin Coward, W. Colin Duncan, Michael L. Eisenberg, Steven A. Gellatly, Christian De Geyter, Dimitrios G. Goulis, Ralf Henkel, Vu N A Ho, Alayman Hussein, Carin Huyser, Jozef H Kadijk, Mohan S. Kamath, Shadi Khashaba, Hajra Khattak, Yoshitomo Kobori, Julia Kopeika, Tansu Küçük, Saturnino Luján, Thabo Matsaseng, Raj Mathur, Kevin McEleny, Rod T. Mitchell, Ben W. Mol, Alfred Murage, Ernest Hung Yu Ng, Allan Pacey, Antti Perheentupa, Stefan S. du Plessis, Nathalie Rives, Ippokratis Sarris, Peter N. Schlegel, Majid Shabbir, Maciej Śmiechowski, Venkatesh Subramanian, Sesh Kamal Sunkara, Basil C. Tarlatzis, Frank Tüttelmann, Andy Vail, Madelon van Wely, Mónica H. Vazquez‐Levin, Lan N. Vuong, Alex Wang, Rui Wang, James MN Duffy, Cindy Farquhar, Craig Niederberger

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDelphi Technique in Research
Établissements canadiensCReATe Fertility CentreSt. Thomas Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesNorgineEuropean Society of Human Reproduction and EmbryologyGedeon RichterWorld Health OrganizationBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungUrology FoundationUK Research and InnovationUniversity of DundeeDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Mots-clésInfertilityMedicineDelphi methodClinical trialRandomized controlled trialOutcome (game theory)Psychological interventionFamily medicineSet (abstract data type)Male infertilityGynecologyPsychologyPregnancyPsychiatrySurgeryComputer scienceInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set be developed through a global consensus to standardize outcome selection, collection, comparison, and reporting in future male infertility trials? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum dataset, known as a 'core outcome set', has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential interventions for male infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Numerous factors, including a failure to consider the perspectives of men with lived experiences of infertility or their partners when developing and conducting RCTs can limit their clinical utility. Selection of outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes based on statistical analysis make the results of infertility research challenging to interpret, compare, and implement. For male infertility, this is further compounded by there being potentially three participants, the male, their female partner, and any offspring born, all with outcomes to be reported. This has led to significant heterogeneity in trial design and reporting. While a core outcome set for general infertility trials has been developed, there is no such outcome set for male infertility trials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A two-round Delphi survey (334 participants from 39 countries) and consensus development workshops (44 participants from 21 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers, and men and women with infertility were brought together in a transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set for male infertility trials has been developed by the inclusion of specific male-factor outcomes in addition to the general infertility core outcome set. These outcomes include assessment of semen using the World Health Organization recommendations for semen analysis; viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancies); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Although not a requirement as part of the core outcome set, other outcomes were identified as potentially useful in certain study settings. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods in this work, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes, which are inconsistently reported at present. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set for male infertility trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was funded by The Urology Foundation, Small Project Fund awarded to Michael P Rimmer at the University of Edinburgh, UK. RTM was supported by a United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) Future Leaders Fellowship (MR/Y011783/1). C.L.R.B. is the co-editor in chief of Human Reproduction and recipient of a BMGF grant and received consultancy fees from Exscentia and Exceed sperm testing, paid to the University of Dundee and speaking fees or honoraria paid personally by Ferring, Copper Surgical and RBMO. R.P.B. receives royalties from Flow diagnósticos. M.L.E. is an advisor to the companies Hannah, Illumicell, Next, Legacy, Doveras, Vseat and received a consultancy fee for this. B.W.M. is a paid consultant for Norgine and Organon and has received research funding from Ferring and Merck, he also receives consultancy and travel support from Merck. R.R.H. received royalties from Elsevier for a book, consultancy fees from Glyciome, and presentation fees from GryNumber Health and Aytu Bioscience. Attendance at Fertility 2020 and Roadshow South Africa by Ralf Henkel was funded by LogixX Pharma Ltd. R.R.H. is also Editor in Chief of Andrologia and has been an employee of LogixX Pharma Ltd. since 2020. M.S.K. has been an associate editor with Human Reproduction Open. K.Mc.E. received funding to attend Fertility 2025 by the British Fertility Society and is the Chair of the British Fertility Society. He is a member of the HFEA's Scientific and Clinical Advances Advisory Committee and a Committee Member of the NICE Fertility Problems Guideline Group. M.H.V.L. receives consultation fees for the WHO Manual Spanish translation, and travel expenses for the ESHRE MRHI meeting in Budapest. She is a member of the editorial board for Fertility & Sterility, F&S Science, Human Reproduction, and Frontiers in Endocrinology. She is also a panel member of the World Health Organization (WHO) Human Reproduction Programme (HRP) Research Project Review Panel. R.S.M. is a member of the NICE Guideline Committee on Fertility and former chair of the British Fertility Society. A. Perheentupa receives an honoraria for lecturing from Merck for the Tackling Infertility manifest, Gedeon Richter & Ferring. A. Perheentupa declares lecture honoraria from Merck, Gideon Richter, and Ferring; and payment from Merck for the Tackling Infertility manifesto. A. Pacey receives consultancy fees for Carrot Fertility and Cryos International as well as lecturing for IBSA Institut Biochimique SA and Mealis Group-all fees paid to The University of Manchester. He is also a Trustee of Progress Educational. Trust (Charity Number 1139856) and Chairman of UKNEQAS Reproductive Sciences Advisory Committee. F.T. is the recipient of a Bayer research grant, as well as DFG Clinical Research Unit 'Male Germ Cells' (CRU326, project number 329621271) and BMBF Junior Scientist Research Centre 'ReproTrack.MS' (grant 01GR2303), he has received travel support from IBSA and Organon. M.v.W. is the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Update. R.W. is a former Deputy Editor of Human Reproduction and is currently a Deputy Editor of Human Reproduction Update. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative registration No: 1586. Available at www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1586.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,557
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,534

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,665
Tête enseignante GPT0,610
Écart entre enseignants0,055 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
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

Citations4
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman ReproductionMême sujetDelphi Technique in ResearchTravaux en français237 207