EFFORT study:Comparing impact of operation and assisted reproductive technologies on fertility for women with deep infiltrating endometriosis - study protocol for a multicentre randomised trial

INTRODUCTION: Deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) affecting the rectum or sigmoid colon is associated with infertility, severe pain and decreased quality of life. As most women with DIE are young, many have a pregnancy intention. Treatment possibilities of endometriosis-associated infertility are surgery or assisted reproductive technologies (ART). However, no studies have compared the two interventions directly. Therefore, this study aims to determine the cumulative pregnancy rate (CPR) and the live birth rate (LBR) after first-line surgery compared with first-line ART for women with rectosigmoid DIE and a pregnancy intention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Multicentre, parallel-group, randomised trial of women with rectosigmoid DIE and a pregnancy intention for at least 6 months in Aarhus, Denmark and Bordeaux, France. 352 women aged 18–38 years are randomised 1:1 to either surgical management (shaving, disc excision or segmental resection) or ART management (at least two in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection procedures if not pregnant after the first cycle). Women in the surgical intervention group will attempt to get pregnant by either spontaneous conception or ART, depending on the endometriosis fertility index score. Primary outcome measures are CPR and LBR at 18 months’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes are: Non-viable pregnancies, time to pregnancy, pain score, quality of life, complication rate, bowel and bladder function, endocrine and inflammatory profile, number of oocytes, blastocysts, frozen embryos and blastocyst morphology score within 18 months after either intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Conduct of this study is approved by the Danish National Committee on Health Research Ethics and Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile de France VIII. Study participants must sign an informed consent form. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT04610710). PROTOCOL VERSION: The Danish National Committee on Health Research Ethics: Fifth protocol version approved 7 September 2020 (no. 1-10-72-96-20). Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile de France VIII: Version 1.1 22JAN2021 the 9 March 2021

Digitalisering af OSKE – En digitaliseret eksamen på godt og ondt

I denne artikel vil vi kort beskrive den digitale OSKE og logistikken forbundet med denne eksamens form. Herudover vil vi beskrive en case fra det digitaliserede simulerede laboratorium og sætte denne en i konteksten under OSKE’en

Validity assumptions for a multiple-choice test of medical knowledge with open-books and web access. A known groups comparison study.

Relatively little evidence about the validity threats in open-book multiple-choice tests exist. The aim of this study was to examine validity aspects relating to gener-alization, extrapolation and decision of a multiple-choice test of medical knowledge with aids (open-book and internet access). The theoretical framework was modern validity theory, and the study was designed as a ‘known groups com-parison’ study. Test performances of three known groups of test takers hypothe-sized to have different knowledge levels of the test content were compared, and analysis of pass/fail decisions was used to examine implications of decisions based on test scores. Results indicated that it was possible to discriminate between expert and non-expert test taker groups even with the access to aids. In contrast, an inde-fensible passing score was found to be the largest potential threat to test validity. Relatively little evidence about the validity threats in open-book multiple-choice tests exist. The aim of this study was to examine validity aspects relating to gener-alization, extrapolation and decision of a multiple-choice test of medical knowledge with aids (open-book and internet access). The theoretical framework was modern validity theory, and the study was designed as a ‘known groups com-parison’ study. Test performances of three known groups of test takers hypothe-sized to have different knowledge levels of the test content were compared, and analysis of pass/fail decisions was used to examine implications of decisions based on test scores. Results indicated that it was possible to discriminate between expert and non-expert test taker groups even with the access to aids. In contrast, an inde-fensible passing score was found to be the largest potential threat to test validity.&nbsp

Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of follitropin delta, a new human recombinant FSH with individualized dosing based on serum antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and body weight, with conventional follitropin alfa dosing for ovarian stimulation in women undergoing IVF. Design Randomized, multicenter, assessor-blinded, noninferiority trial (ESTHER-1). Setting Reproductive medicine clinics. Patient(s) A total of 1,329 women (aged 18â40 years). Intervention(s) Follitropin delta (AMH <15 pmol/L: 12 μg/d; AMH â¥15 pmol/L: 0.10â0.19 μg/kg/d; maximum 12 μg/d), or follitropin alfa (150 IU/d for 5 days, potential subsequent dose adjustments; maximum 450 IU/d). Main Outcomes Measure(s) Ongoing pregnancy and ongoing implantation rates; noninferiority margins â8.0%. Result(s) Ongoing pregnancy (30.7% vs. 31.6%; difference â0.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) â5.9% to 4.1%]), ongoing implantation (35.2% vs. 35.8%; â0.6% [95% CI â6.1% to 4.8%]), and live birth (29.8% vs. 30.7%; â0.9% [95% CI â5.8% to 4.0%]) rates were similar for individualized follitropin delta and conventional follitropin alfa. Individualized follitropin delta resulted in more women with target response (8â14 oocytes) (43.3% vs. 38.4%), fewer poor responses (fewer than four oocytes in patients with AMH <15 pmol/L) (11.8% vs. 17.9%), fewer excessive responses (â¥15 or â¥20 oocytes in patients with AMH â¥15 pmol/L) (27.9% vs. 35.1% and 10.1% vs. 15.6%, respectively), and fewer measures taken to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (2.3% vs. 4.5%), despite similar oocyte yield (10.0 ± 5.6 vs. 10.4 ± 6.5) and similar blastocyst numbers (3.3 ± 2.8 vs. 3.5 ± 3.2), and less gonadotropin use (90.0 ± 25.3 vs. 103.7 ± 33.6 μg). Conclusion(s) Optimizing ovarian response in IVF by individualized dosing according to pretreatment patient characteristics results in similar efficacy and improved safety compared with conventional ovarian stimulation. Clinical Trial Registration Number NCT01956110