SynthesisHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2025
The presence, clarity, and consistency of definitions in pregnancy outcomes in infertility trials: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative Effectiveness of Recombinant Human Follicle-Stimulating Hormone:Recombinant Human Luteinizing Hormone in a 2:1 Ratio versus Highly Purified Human Menopausal Gonadotropin Alone in Ovarian Stimulation for Medically Assisted Reproduction Treatment Using in vitro Fertilization/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Gynecologic and obstetric investigation · 2026Pooled it
- The potential of large language models in the field of infertility: a systematic review.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Immediate post-denudation intracytoplasmic sperm injection is associated with higher fertilization and early cleavage-stage embryo yield: a prospective sibling-oocyte cohort from Libyan ICSI cycles.The Libyan journal of medicine · 2026Article
- Mendelian randomization in ovarian research: applications in PCOS, ovarian aging, and assisted reproductive technology.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Review
- Does the Depth of Hysteroscopic Endometrial Fundal Incision Influence Reproductive Outcomes in Oocyte Recipients? A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Precision Microbial Therapeutics for Infertility: Next-Generation Probiotics, Engineered Biologics and Translational Pathways.Microbial biotechnology · 2026Review
- How Resilience Mitigates Depression After IVF-ET Failure: A Moderated Mediation Model of Hope, Social Relations, and Income in China.International journal of women's health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionHow frequently do infertility trials report live birth and pregnancy, and how consistently were their definitions reported? SUMMARY ANSWER: One-third of 1425 infertility trials published in the last decade reported live birth, with one in eight reporting clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth concurrently; absent, ambiguous, or heterogeneous definitions were common. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Absent or inconsistent outcome definitions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) limit their interpretation and complicate subsequent evidence synthesis. While reporting live birth in infertility trials has been a long-running recommendation, the extent to which this is adhered to, and the temporal trend of adherence, is unclear. Furthermore, it is unknown if outcome reporting in infertility trials is clear and consistent. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We studied all RCTs in infertility published between 2012 and 2023. We aimed to assess (i) whether biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth were reported; the temporal trends in reporting these pregnancy outcomes, and compare the characteristics of trials reporting each type of outcome; (ii) whether and how these pregnancy outcomes were defined. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsWe systematically searched Embase, Medline, and CENTRAL for RCTs in infertility from January 2012 to August 2023. RCTs involving infertile women that reported either biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, or live birth were eligible. Secondary analyses, interim analyses, or conference abstracts were not eligible. Two authors independently screened articles. We extracted pregnancy definitions and trial characteristics primarily using text mining in R, a programming environment for data analysis, and supplemented by manual checking. The accuracy of extracted data was validated in a random sample of 50 articles, with sensitivity and specificity all at or above 90%. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 1425 infertility RCTs. Among these, 419 (29.4%) reported biochemical pregnancy. While 1359 (95.4%) RCTs reported clinical pregnancy, 404 (28.4%) reported ongoing pregnancy, and 484 (34.0%) reported live birth, only 174 (12.2%) reported all three outcomes. The proportion of trials reporting live birth increased from 23.1% in 2012 to 33.7% in 2023. Trials reporting up to biochemical pregnancy or clinical pregnancy were more likely to be unregistered, smaller, single-centered, and published in non-first quarter journals. Definitions for biochemical, clinical, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth were provided in 68.5% (287/419), 64.5% (876/1359), 70.5% (285/404), and 41.1% (199/484) of articles reporting on these outcomes. Among 876 clinical pregnancy definitions, 63.4% (n = 555) specified the pregnancy confirmation timing. Of the 220 definitions that reported gestational weeks (ranging from 4 to 16 weeks), the most common cut-off was 6 weeks, used in 48.2% (n = 106) of cases. For ongoing pregnancy definitions, 96.1% (n = 274) of the 285 definitions included gestational age in weeks (ranging from 6 to 32 weeks), with 12 weeks being the most common cut-off used in 49.1% (n = 140) of definitions. Among 199 live birth definitions, 62.3% (n = 124) used a gestational age threshold (ranging from 20 to 37 weeks), with 24 weeks being the most common cut-off, used in 28.6% (n = 57) of trials. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to the vast data we needed to extract, we used text-mining supplemented by manual data extraction. While we optimized the text-mining algorithm attempting to identify all types of outcome definitions and manually curated all extracted definitions, definitions were missed in less than 10% of randomly checked studies, which is a limitation of this study. We only described definition patterns in published RCTs, and our results cannot be extrapolated to unpublished RCTs. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsDespite long-standing recommendations to report live birth in infertility trials, in the last decade only a third of RCTs did so. This highlights a disconnection between the advocated outcome and what researchers are reporting. We observed an encouraging trend that there has been a consistent rise in the proportion of trials reporting live birth. Furthermore, the significant lack and variability of pregnancy definitions underscore the imperative to increase the dissemination and uptake of standardized pregnancy outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was received for the study. Q.F. reports receiving a PhD scholarship from Merck. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy, travel support, and research funding from Merck and consultancy for Organon and Norgine. B.W.M. holds stock from ObsEva. W.T.L. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GTN2016729). W.L.L. reports receiving a PhD scholarship from the China Scholarship Council. T.D.H and S.L. are employees of Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. R.W. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GTN2009767). The other author has no conflict of interest to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024498624.
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.