Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to express our appreciation to Dra Abha Maheshwari for her important authorial contribution to the previous version of this review. We also acknowledge the important help provided by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group team, specially by Marian Showell, Trials Search Co-ordinator; by Helen Nagels, Managing Editor; and by Prof. Cindy Farquhar, Co-ordinating Editor. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the following investigators, who provided essential information for the preparation of this review: TK Aleyamma, Erin F Wolff, Lukasz Polanski, Nava Dekel, Neeta Singh, Suleyman Guven and Tracy YeungPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Phenotypic microarrays suggest Escherichia coli ST131 is not a metabolically distinct lineage of extra-intestinal pathogenic E. coli

Extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli (ExPEC) are the major aetiological agent of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in humans. The emergence of the CTX-M producing clone E. coli ST131 represents a major challenge to public health worldwide. A recent study on the metabolic potential of E. coli isolates demonstrated an association between the E. coli ST131 clone and enhanced utilisation of a panel of metabolic substrates. The studies presented here investigated the metabolic potential of ST131 and other major ExPEC ST isolates using 120 API test reagents and found that ST131 isolates demonstrated a lower metabolic activity for 5 of 120 biochemical tests in comparison to non-ST131 ExPEC isolates. Furthermore, comparative phenotypic microarray analysis showed a lack of specific metabolic profile for ST131 isolates countering the suggestion that these bacteria are metabolically fitter and therefore more successful human pathogens

Midline denture base strains of glass fiber-reinforced single implant-supported overdentures

Statement of problemThe fracture incidence of implant-supported overdentures is more frequent in the area of attachment because of stress concentration and denture deformation in this area. How E-glass fiber reinforcement can address this problem is unclear.PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of unidirectional E-glass fiber reinforcement on the mid-line denture base strains of single implant-supported overdentures.Material and methodsAn experimental acrylic resin cast was constructed with a single implant placed in the mid-line area and a ball attachment screwed to the implant. Twenty-four experimental overdentures were constructed and divided into 4 groups: group AP fabricated from autopolymerizing acrylic resin without fiber reinforcement, group APF fabricated from autopolymerizing acrylic resin with unidirectional E-glass fiber reinforcement running over the residual ridge and the ball matrix, group HP fabricated from heat-polymerized acrylic resin without fiber reinforcement, and group HPF fabricated from heat-polymerized acrylic resin with unidirectional E-glass fiber reinforcement running over the residual ridge and the ball matrix. A biaxial rosette strain gauge was attached to the incisor areas of each overdenture above the attachment level (Ch1, Ch2) and to a multichannel digital strain meter. A static vertical load of 100 N was applied to the first molar area bilaterally by using a universal testing device during strain measurement procedures. The differences in the mean strain and deflection values among the investigated groups were evaluated for statistical significance using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Tukey post hoc multiple comparison (α=.05).ResultsThe type of acrylic resin did not have a statistically significant effect on the mean strain values among groups (P=.350), while the reinforcement did significantly affect them (PConclusionsUnidirectional E-glass fiber reinforcement placed over the residual ridge and implant attachment significantly reduced denture base strains and deformation of single implant-supported overdentures.</p

Biomechanical aspects of reinforced implant over-dentures: a systematic review

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the effect of reinforcement on the mechanical behaviour of implant overdenture (IOD) bases and its cumulative biological effect on the underlying supporting structures (implants and the residual ridge).Material and methodsThe required documents were collected electronically from PubMed and Web of Science databases targeting papers published in English that focused on denture base reinforcement for IOD prostheses in order to recognize the principal outcomes of reinforcement on the mechanical and biological properties of overdentures. Such biological outcomes as: strains on implants, peri-implant bone loss, residual ridge resorption, and strain on the residual alveolar ridge.ResultsA total of 269 citations were identified. After excluding any repeated articles between databases and the application of exclusion and inclusion criteria, only 13 publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three publications investigated the mechanical properties of fibre and/or metal-reinforced implant overdentures while another 3 articles investigated the effect of metal reinforcement on stress distribution and strains transmitted to the underlying implants. In addition, 3 in vitro studies investigated the effect of metal reinforcement on overdenture base strain and stresses. Stress distribution to the residual ridge and strain characteristics of the underlying tissues were investigated by 2 in vitro studies. Five clinical studies performed to assist the clinical and prosthetic maintenance of metal-reinforced IOD were included. Data concerning denture base fracture, relining, peri-implant bone loss, probing depth, and implant survival rates during the functional period were extracted and considered in order to evaluate the mechanical properties of the denture base, residual ridge resorption and implant preservation rates, respectively.ConclusionThe use of a denture base reinforcement can reduce the fracture incidence in IOD bases by enhancing their flexural properties and reducing the overdenture base deformation. Strains on the underlying supporting structures of overdenture prostheses including dental implants and the residual ridge can be decreased and evenly distributed using a metal reinforcement.</div

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research : An international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

Study Question Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed? Summary Answer A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. What is Known Already Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. Study Design, Size, Duration A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. Main Results and the Role of Chance The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. Limitations, Reasons for Caution We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold. Wider Implications of the Findings Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

Study Question Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? Summary Answer Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements, and a standardized reporting table have been developed. What is Known Already Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. Study Design, Size, Duration Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. Main Results and the Role of Chance Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. Limitations, Reasons for Caution We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. Wider Implications of the Findings A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms, and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set