ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2025
Assessing the uptake of infertility core outcome set in IVF randomized controlled trials.
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A core outcome set for future male infertility research: development of an international consensus.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
study questionDo the infertility core outcome set and standardized definitions affect the outcome selection for randomized controlled trials, and what aspects should be further improved in the future? SUMMARY ANSWER: Intrauterine pregnancy demonstrated the highest uptake level, whereas others were low, especially in neonatal outcomes; as time progresses, the target sample size increases, and with prospective registration, the consistency between outcomes reported in registrations and infertility core outcome set improves significantly. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The infertility core outcome set, published on 30 November 2020, aims to standardize outcome reporting and prevent selective reporting bias; however, there is a paucity of research evaluating its actual adoption, which is crucial for the timely promotion of transparency, standardization, adjustment of development strategies, and efficient resource utilization. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This cross-sectional study included 1673 eligible randomized controlled trial registrations for infertility in 18 registries from March 2004 to July 2024 based on registry entries. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsA total of 4625 infertility-related studies from 1 November 1999 to 26 July 2024 were retrieved in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Finally, 1673 randomized controlled trial registrations were selected and divided into four period groups. Period, target sample size, prospective registration, blinding, support, and countries/regions were potential influencing factors. The consistency of outcomes, definitions, and standardized denominators of randomized controlled trial registry entries with the recommendations of the infertility core outcome set were the main outcomes. Independent retrieval, screening, data extraction, and consistency evaluations by two assessors and expert consultations were conducted to assess the uptake and potential influencing factors of the infertility core outcome set in randomized controlled trials involving infertile patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Results reveal that the reporting level in the pregnancy domain was significantly higher than that in the neonatal domain (13.6% vs 5.7%). Intrauterine pregnancy (66.9%), live birth (27.6%), and miscarriage (26.5%) had relatively high uptake levels. The uptake of most core outcomes and domains, as well as the total number of reported core outcomes, showed statistically significant differences based on period, target sample size, and prospective registration. Multivariable analyses supported the above finding. Reasons responsible for the results may be attributed to the lack of effective promotional measures, as well as the limited researcher awareness regarding this core outcome set. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Some results in this study may have been influenced by the subjective judgment of the evaluators due to the complexity of the information in registries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsUptake of most core outcomes or domains is increasing but is not yet ideal. Moreover, the upward trend cannot be solely attributed to the publication of the infertility core outcome set. The key to promoting uptake is to thoroughly explore and recognize the factors that both facilitate and hinder the uptake of the infertility core outcome set, further expand and publicize the core outcome set, and foster multidisciplinary or multiple stakeholder cooperation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by the Capital's Funds for Health Improvement and Research (CFH 2024-2G-4097), as well as the special fund of Beijing Key Clinical Specialty Construction Project. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/3184.
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.