ReviewCurrent opinion in obstetrics & gynecology2018
Complexities and potential pitfalls of clinical study design and data analysis in assisted reproduction.
Review in Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe purpose of the current review is to describe the common pitfalls in design and statistical analysis of reproductive medicine studies. It serves to guide both authors and reviewers toward reducing the incidence of spurious statistical results and erroneous conclusions. RECENT
findingsThe large amount of data gathered in IVF cycles leads to problems with multiplicity, multicollinearity, and over fitting of regression models. Furthermore, the use of the word 'trend' to describe nonsignificant results has increased in recent years. Finally, methods to accurately account for female age in infertility research models are becoming more common and necessary. SUMMARY: The pitfalls of study design and analysis reviewed provide a framework for authors and reviewers to approach clinical research in the field of reproductive medicine. By providing a more rigorous approach to study design and analysis, the literature in reproductive medicine will have more reliable conclusions that can stand the test of time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.