Double versus single intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples

Background In subfertile couples, couples who have tried to conceive for at least one year, intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is one of the treatment modalities that can be offered. When IUI is performed a second IUI in the same cycle might add to the chances of conceiving. In a previous update of this review in 2010 it was shown that double IUI increases pregnancy rates when compared to single IUI. Since 2010, different clinical trials have been published with differing conclusions about whether double WI increases pregnancy rates compared to single IUI. Objectives To determine the effectiveness and safety of double intrauterine insemination (IUI) compared to single IUI in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLI NE, Embase and CINAHL in July 2020 and LILACS, Google scholar and Epistemoni kos in February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled, parallel trials of double versus single lUls in stimulated cycles in subfertile couples. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results We identified in nine studies involving subfertile women. The evidence was of low quality; the main limitations were unclear risk of bias, inconsistent results for some outcomes and imprecision, due to small trials with imprecise results. We are uncertain whether double IUI improves live birth rate compared to single IUI (odds ratio (OR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.88; I-2 = 29%; studies= 3, participants =468; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth following single IUI is 16%, the chance of live birth following double IUI would be between 12% and 27%. Performing a sensitivity analysis restricted to only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with low risk of selection bias showed similar results. We are uncertain whether double IUI reduces miscarriage rate compared to single IUI (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.24; I-2 = 0%; studies = 6, participants = 2363; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that chance of miscarriage following single IUI is 1.5% and the chance following double IUI would be between 1.5% and 5%. The reported clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised may increase with double 11.11 group (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.86; I-2 = 34%; studies = 9, participants = 2716; low quality evidence). This result should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality of the evidence and the moderate inconsistency. The evidence suggests that the chance of a pregnancy following single IUI is 14% and the chance following double IUI would be between 16% and 23%. We are uncertain whether double IUI affects multiple pregnancy rate compared to single IUI (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.56; I-2 = 8%; studies = 5; participants = 2203; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that chance of multiple pregnancy following single IUI is 0.7% and the chance following double ILA would be between 0.85% and 3.7%. We are uncertain whether double IUI has an effect on ectopic pregnancy rate compared to single IUI (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.28; I-2 = 0%; studies =4, participants= 1048; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that the chance of an ectopic pregnancy following single IUI is 0.8% and the chance following double IUI would be between 0.3% and 3.2%. Authors' conclusions Our main analysis, of which the evidence is low quality, shows that we are uncertain if double IUI improves live birth and reduces miscarriage compared to single IUI. Our sensitivity analysis restricted to studies of low risk of selection bias for both outcomes is consistent with the main analysis. Clinical pregnancy rate may increase in the double IUI group, but this should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. We are uncertain whether double IUI has an effect on multiple pregnancy rate and ectopic pregnancy rate compared to single IUI

Natural cycle in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for subfertile couples

Background Subfertility affects 15% to 20% of couples trying to conceive. In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is one of the assisted reproduction techniques developed to improve chances of achieving pregnancy. In the standard IVF method with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), growth and development of multiple follicles are stimulated by using gonadotrophins, often combined with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist. Although it is an established method of conception for subfertile couples, the treatment is expensive and has a high risk of adverse effects. Studies have shown that IVF in a natural cycle (NC) or a modified natural cycle (MNC) might be a promising low risk and low cost alternative to the standard stimulated IVF treatment since the available dominant follicle of each cycle is used. In this review, we included available randomised controlled studies comparing natural cycle IVF (NC and MNC) with standard IVF. Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of natural cycle IVF (including both NC-IVF and MNC-IVF) with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation IVF (COH-IVF) in subfertile couples. Search methods An extended search including of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, conference abstracts in the Web of Knowledge, the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform search portal, LILACS database, PubMed and the OpenSIGLE database was conducted according to Cochrane guidelines. The last search was on 31st July 2013. Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either natural cycle IVF or modified natural cycle IVF versus standard IVF in subfertile couples were included. Data collection and analysis Data selection and extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out independently by two authors (TA and AC). The primary outcome measures were live birth rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate per randomised woman. We calculated Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios for each dichotomous outcome and either the mean difference or the standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A fixed effect model was used unless there was substantial heterogeneity, in which case a random effects model was used. Main results Six randomised controlled trials with a total of 788 women were included. The largest of these trials included 396 women eligible for this review. No evidence of a statistically significant difference was found between natural cycle and standard IVF in live birth rates (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01, two studies, 425 women, I-2=0%, moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for a woman with a 53% chance of live birth using standard IVF, the chance using natural cycle IVF would range from 34% to 53%. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference between natural cycle and standard IVF in rates of OHSS (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06, one study, 60 women, very low quality evidence), clinical pregnancy (OR 0.52 95% CI 0.17 to 1.61, 4 studies, 351 women, I-2=63%, low quality evidence), ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.05, three studies, 485 women, I-2=0%, moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.31, 2 studies, 527 women, I-2=0%, very low quality evidence), gestational abnormalities (OR 0.44 95% CI 0.03 to 5.93, 1 study, 18 women, very low quality evidence) or cycle cancellations (OR 8.98, 95% CI 0.20 to 393.66, 2 studies, 159 women, I-2=83%, very low quality evidence). One trial reported that the oocyte retrieval rate was significantly lower in the natural cycle group (MD -4.40, 95% CI -7.87 to -0.93, 60 women, very low quality evidence). There were insufficient data to draw any conclusions about rates of treatment cancellation. Findings on treatment costs were inconsistent and more data are awaited. The evidence was limited by imprecision. Findings for pregnancy rate and for cycle cancellation were sensitive to the choice of statistical model: for these outcomes, use of a fixed effect model suggested a benefit for the standard IVF group. Moreover the largest trial has not yet completed follow up, though data have been reported for over 95% of women. Authors' conclusions Further evidence from well conducted large trials is awaited on natural cycle IVF treatment. Future trials should compare natural cycle IVF with standard IVF. Outcomes should include cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates, the number of treatment cycles necessary to reach live birth, treatment costs and adverse effects

Male subfertility and oxidative stress

To date 15% of couples are suffering from infertility with 45–50% of males being responsible. With an increase in paternal age as well as various environmental and lifestyle factors worsening these figures are expected to increase. As the so-called free radical theory of infertility suggests, free radicals or reactive oxygen species (ROS) play an essential role in this process. However, ROS also fulfill important functions for instance in sperm maturation. The aim of this review article is to discuss the role reactive oxygen species play in male fertility and how these are influenced by lifestyle, age or disease. We will further discuss how these ROS are measured and how they can be avoided during in-vitro fertilization

Local and Systemic Oxidative Stress Biomarkers for Male Infertility: The ORION Study

Infertility problems occur in around 10% of all couples worldwide, with male-factor infertility as the sole contributor in 20–30% of these cases. Oxidative stress (OS) is suggested to be associated with the pathophysiology of male infertility. In spermatozoa, OS can lead to damage to the cell membrane, resulting in disruption of DNA integrity and a decrease in motility. Established biomarkers for OS include free thiols and malondialdehyde (MDA), both representing different components of the reactive species interactome (RSI). This exploratory study aimed to investigate seminal plasma-free thiol and MDA levels in relation to semen parameters as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) to determine if these markers are adequate to define local OS status. Furthermore, this study investigated if there is a relation between systemic and local OS status by comparing seminal concentrations of free thiol (R-SH, sulfhydryl groups, representing the extracellular redox status) and MDA (lipid peroxidation product) levels to those measured in serum. Free thiol and MDA measurements in both serum and semen plasma were performed in 50 males (18–55 y) of couples seeking fertility treatment. A significant positive correlation was found between seminal plasma-free thiol levels and sperm concentration and progressive motility (r = 0.383, p = 0.008 and r = 0.333, p = 0.022, respectively). In addition, a significant positive correlation was found between MDA levels in seminal plasma and sperm concentration (r = 0.314, p = 0.031). This study supports that seminal plasma-free thiols may be promising as local OS biomarkers. No associations were observed between local and systemic OS biomarker concentrations

Dietary Intake, Eating Behavior, Physical Activity, and Quality of Life in Infertile Women with PCOS and Obesity Compared with Non-PCOS Obese Controls

To personalize lifestyle advice for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and obesity, detailed information regarding dietary intake, eating behavior, physical activity levels, and quality of life (QoL) may be useful. We aimed to investigate in a post-hoc cross-sectional analysis within a large multicenter randomized controlled trial in women with infertility whether there are significant differences in dietary intake (vegetables, fruits, sugary drinks, alcoholic beverages, savory snacks, and sweet snacks); eating behavior (emotional eating, external eating, and restricted eating); physical activity; and QoL between women with PCOS and obesity and non-PCOS obese controls. Participants were asked to complete the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ), the Short QUestionnaire to ASsess Health-enhancing physical activity (SQUASH), and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) at study entry (PCOS: n = 170; non-PCOS: n = 321, mean BMI: 36). Linear and binary (multinomial) logistic regressions were used, and the analyses were adjusted for age, waist–hip circumference ratio, and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). No statistically significant differences in dietary intake or physical activity were observed between the two groups. The overall score of emotional eating was 34.6 ± 11.2 in the PCOS group and 34.1 ± 11.3 in the non-PCOS group (p = 0.11). QoL scores (physical and mental) did not differ between PCOS and non-PCOS women. These findings suggest that infertile women with PCOS and obesity and infertile non-PCOS obese controls do not have different dietary habits and have similar mental and physical QoL

Protocol for a randomized controlled multicenter trial assessing the efficacy of leuprorelin for severe polycystic liver disease : the AGAINST-PLD study

Altres ajuts: Dutch Government (ZonMW grant 10140261910001); Abbvie (SA-003047 (ACA-NETH-20-01)).Background: In patients with severe polycystic liver disease (PLD), there is a need for new treatments. Estrogens and possibly other female sex hormones stimulate growth in PLD. In some patients, liver volume decreases after menopause. Female sex hormones could therefore be a target for therapy. The AGAINST-PLD study will examine the efficacy of the GnRH agonist leuprorelin, which blocks the production of estrogen and other sex hormones, to reduce liver growth in PLD. Methods: The AGAINST-PLD study is an investigator-driven, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was received at the University Medical Center of Groningen and will be collected in other sites before opening these sites. Thirty-six female, pre-menopausal patients, with a very large liver volume for age (upper 10% of the PLD population) and ongoing liver growth despite current treatment options will be randomized to direct start of leuprorelin or to 18 months standard of care and delayed start of leuprorelin. Leuprorelin is given as 3.75 mg subcutaneously (s.c.) monthly for the first 3 months followed by 3-monthly depots of 11.25 mg s.c. The trial duration is 36 months. MRI scans to measure liver volume will be performed at screening, 6 months, 18 months, 24 months and 36 months. In addition, blood will be drawn, DEXA-scans will be performed and questionnaires will be collected. This design enables comparison between patients on study treatment and standard of care (first 18 months) and within patients before and during treatment (whole trial). Main outcome is annualized liver growth rate compared between standard of care and study treatment. Secondary outcomes are PLD disease severity, change in liver growth within individuals and (serious) adverse events. The study is designed as a prospective open-label study with blinded endpoint assessment (PROBE). Discussion: In this trial, we combined the expertise of hepatologist, nephrologists and gynecologists to study the effect of leuprorelin on liver growth in PLD. In this way, we hope to stop liver growth, reduce symptoms and reduce the need for liver transplantation in severe PLD. Trial registration Eudra CT number 2020-005949-16, registered at 15 Dec 2020. https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2020-005949-16

Lifestyle intervention prior to IVF does not improve embryo utilization rate and cumulative live birth rate in women with obesity:a nested cohort study

STUDY QUESTION: Does lifestyle intervention consisting of an energy-restricted diet, enhancement of physical activity and motivational counseling prior to IVF improve embryo utilization rate (EUR) and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) in women with obesity? SUMMARY ANSWER: A 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding IVF improved neither EUR nor CLBR in women with obesity in the first IVF treatment cycle where at least one oocyte was retrieved. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the efficacy of a low caloric liquid formula diet (LCD) preceding IVF in women with obesity was unable to demonstrate an effect of LCD on embryo quality and live birth rate: in this study, only one fresh embryo transfer (ET) or, in case of freeze-all strategy, the first transfer with frozen-thawed embryos was reported. We hypothesized that any effect on embryo quality of a lifestyle intervention in women with obesity undergoing IVF treatment is better revealed by EUR and CLBR after transfer of all fresh and frozen-thawed embryos. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a nested cohort study within an RCT, the LIFEstyle study. The original study examined whether a 6-month lifestyle intervention prior to infertility treatment in women with obesity improved live birth rate, compared to prompt infertility treatment within 24 months after randomization. In the original study between 2009 and 2012, 577 (three women withdrew informed consent) women with obesity and infertility were assigned to a lifestyle intervention followed by infertility treatment (n = 289) or to prompt infertility treatment (n = 285). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Only participants from the LIFEstyle study who received IVF treatment were eligible for the current analysis. In total, 137 participants (n = 58 in the intervention group and n = 79 in the control group) started the first cycle. In 25 participants, the first cycle was cancelled prior to oocyte retrieval mostly due to poor response. Sixteen participants started a second or third consecutive cycle. The first cycle with successful oocyte retrieval was used for this analysis, resulting in analysis of 51 participants in the intervention group and 72 participants in the control group. Considering differences in embryo scoring methods and ET day strategy between IVF centers, we used EUR as a proxy for embryo quality. EUR was defined as the proportion of inseminated/injected oocytes per cycle that was transferred or cryopreserved as an embryo. Analysis was performed per cycle and per oocyte/embryo. CLBR was defined as the percentage of participants with at least one live birth from the first fresh and subsequent frozen-thawed ET(s). In addition, we calculated the Z-score for singleton neonatal birthweight and compared these outcomes between the two groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The overall mean age was 31.6 years and the mean BMI was 35.4 ± 3.2 kg/m(2) in the intervention group, and 34.9 ± 2.9 kg/m(2) in the control group. The weight change at 6 months was in favor of the intervention group (mean difference in kg vs the control group: −3.14, 95% CI: −5.73 to −0.56). The median (Q25; Q75) number of oocytes retrieved was 4.00 (2.00; 8.00) in the intervention group versus 6.00 (4.00; 9.75) in the control group, and was not significantly different, as was the number of oocytes inseminated/injected (4.00 [2.00; 8.00] vs 6.00 [3.00; 8.75]), normal fertilized embryos (2.00 [0.50; 5.00] vs 3.00 [1.00; 5.00]) and the number of cryopreserved embryos (2.00 [1.25; 4.75] vs 2.00 [1.00; 4.00]). The median (Q25; Q75) EUR was 33.3% (12.5%; 60.0%) in the intervention group and 33.3% (16.7%; 50.0%) in the control group in the per cycle analysis (adjusted B: 2.7%, 95% CI: −8.6% to 14.0%). In the per oocyte/embryo analysis, in total, 280 oocytes were injected or inseminated in the intervention group, 113 were utilized (transferred or cryopreserved, EUR = 40.4%); in the control group, EUR was 30.8% (142/461). The lifestyle intervention did not significantly improve EUR (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.94–1.98) in the per oocyte/embryo analysis, taking into account the interdependency of the oocytes per participant. CLBR was not significantly different between the intervention group and the control group after adjusting for type of infertility (male factor and unexplained) and smoking (27.5% vs 22.2%, adjusted OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.43–2.47). Singleton neonatal birthweight and Z-score were not significantly different between the two groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is a nested cohort study within an RCT, and no power calculation was performed. The randomization was not stratified for indicated treatment, and although we corrected our analyses for baseline differences, there may be residual confounding. The limited absolute weight loss and the short duration of the lifestyle intervention might be insufficient to affect EUR and CLBR. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our data do not support the hypothesis of a beneficial short-term effect of lifestyle intervention on EUR and CLBR after IVF in women with obesity, although more studies are needed as there may be a potential clinically relevant effect on EUR. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). A.H. has received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet, has been a member of the ObsEva advisory board and holds Stock options for ObsEva. B.W.J.M. has received research funding from Guerbet, Ferring and Merck. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees from membership of the external advisory board for Merck Serono and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The LIFEstyle RCT was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530). https://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1530

Protocol for developing a core outcome set for male infertility research:an international consensus development study

Abstract STUDY QUESTION We aim to develop, disseminate and implement a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future male infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Research into male infertility can be challenging to design, conduct and report. Evidence from randomized trials can be difficult to interpret and of limited ability to inform clinical practice for numerous reasons. These may include complex issues, such as variation in outcome measures and outcome reporting bias, as well as failure to consider the perspectives of men and their partners with lived experience of fertility problems. Previously, the Core Outcome Measure for Infertility Trials (COMMIT) initiative, an international consortium of researchers, healthcare professionals and people with fertility problems, has developed a core outcome set for general infertility research. Now, a bespoke core outcome set for male infertility is required to address the unique challenges pertinent to male infertility research. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, scientists, researchers and people with fertility problems, will be invited to participate. Formal consensus science methods will be used, including the modified Delphi method, modified Nominal Group Technique and the National Institutes of Health’s consensus development conference. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS An international steering group, including the relevant stakeholders outlined above, has been established to guide the development of this core outcome set. Possible core outcomes will be identified by undertaking a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male factor infertility. These outcomes will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Repeated reflection and re-scoring should promote convergence towards consensus outcomes, which will be prioritized during a consensus development meeting to identify a final core outcome set. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work has been supported by the Urology Foundation small project award, 2021. C.L.R.B. is the recipient of a BMGF grant and received consultancy fees from Exscentia and Exceed sperm testing, paid to the University of Dundee and speaking fees or honoraria paid personally by Ferring, Copper Surgical and RBMO. S.B. received royalties from Cambridge University Press, Speaker honoraria for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Singapore, Merk SMART Masterclass and Merk FERRING Forum, paid to the University of Aberdeen. Payment for leadership roles within NHS Grampian, previously paid to self, now paid to University of Aberdeen. An Honorarium is received as Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. M.L.E. is an advisor to the companies Hannah and Ro. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from the NHMRC, No: GNT1176437 is a paid consultant for ObsEva and has received research funding from Ferring and Merck. R.R.H. received royalties from Elsevier for a book, consultancy fees from Glyciome, and presentation fees from GryNumber Health and Aytu Bioscience. Aytu Bioscience also funded MiOXYS systems and sensors. Attendance at Fertility 2020 and Roadshow South Africa by Ralf Henkel was funded by LogixX Pharma Ltd. R.R.H. is also Editor in Chief of Andrologia and has been an employee of LogixX Pharma Ltd. since 2020. M.S.K. is an associate editor with Human Reproduction Open. K.Mc.E. received an honoraria for lectures from Bayer and Pharmasure in 2019 and payment for an ESHRE grant review in 2019. His attendance at ESHRE 2019 and AUA 2019 was sponsored by Pharmasure and Bayer, respectively. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative registration No: 1586. Available at www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1586. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE N/A. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT N/A

Endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI cycle-outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (SCRaTCH)

STUDY QUESTION: Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER: In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between -0.7% and +9.9%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96-1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between -0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratchin