Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35128452›Full record

ReviewReproduction & fertility2021

Study design flaws and statistical challenges in evaluating fertility treatments.

Jack Wilkinson, Katie Stocking

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reproduction & fertility, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. SART CORS IVF registry: looking to the past to shape future perspectives.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Meetings that matter: time to put artificial intelligence on the ART roadmap.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jack WilkinsonCentre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Katie StockingCentre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 204796/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health interventions should be tested before being introduced into clinical practice, to find out whether they work and whether they are harmful. However, research studies will only provide reliable answers to these questions if they are appropriately designed and analysed. But these are not trivial tasks. We review some methodological challenges that arise when evaluating fertility interventions and explain the implications for a non-statistical audience. These include flexibility in outcomes and analyses; use of surrogate outcomes instead of live birth; use of inappropriate denominators; evaluating cumulative outcomes and time to live birth; allowing each patient or couple to contribute to a research study more than once. We highlight recurring errors and present solutions. We conclude by highlighting the importance of collaboration between clinical and methodological experts, as well as people with experience of subfertility, for realising high-quality research. LAY SUMMARY: We do research to find out whether fertility treatments are beneficial and to make sure they don't cause harm. However, research will only provide reliable answers if it is done properly. It is not unusual for researchers to make mistakes when they are designing research studies and analysing the data that we get from them. In this review, we describe some of the mistakes people make when they do research about fertility treatments and explain how to avoid them. These include challenges which arise due to the large number of things that can be measured and reported when looking to see if fertility treatments work; failure to check whether the treatment increases the number of live births; failing to include all study participants in calculations;challenges in studies where participants may have more than one treatment attempt. We conclude by highlighting the importance of collaboration between clinical and methodological experts, as well as people with experience of fertility problems.

Indexed as

Birth RateInfertilityFemaleFertilityFertilization in VitroHumansLive BirthPregnancyassisted reproductionreproductive medicine

Identifiers

PMID35128452
PMCPMC8812412
OpenAlexW3164863188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.