MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108972885 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaa242

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

2020· article· en· W3108972885 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational 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
KeywordsInterimInfertilityHealth careFertilitySystematic reviewFamily medicineMedicineMEDLINEGynecologyPolitical sciencePopulationEnvironmental healthLawPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.419
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.445
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4190.445
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0050.019
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.363
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.115 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207