Ongoing pregnancy qualifies best as the primary outcome measure of choice in trials in reproductive medicine: an opinion paper

被引：63

作者：

Braakhekke, Miriam ^{[1
]}

Kamphuis, Esme I. ^{[1
]}

Dancet, Eline A. ^{[1
]}

Mol, Femke ^{[1
]}

van der Veen, Fulco ^{[1
]}

Mol, Ben W. ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Ctr Reprod Med, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands

[2] Univ Adelaide, Sch Paediat & Reprod Hlth, Adelaide, SA, Australia

来源：

FERTILITY AND STERILITY | 2014年 / 101卷 / 05期

关键词：

RCT; reproductive medicine; primary outcome measure; ongoing pregnancy; singleton outcome measure;

D O I：

10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.03.047

中图分类号：

R71 [妇产科学];

学科分类号：

100211 ;

摘要：

The most appropriate primary outcome measure for reproductive medicine has been discussed frequently. In 2003 the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology recommended that the outcome measure of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and non-ART should be singleton live birth. Although live birth is indeed the aim of clinical practice, and there is no discussion that it should be reported in infertility trials, we hereby provide arguments that plead for using ongoing pregnancy as the primary outcome in such trials. We feel that ongoing pregnancy best serves the many purposes of a primary outcome and best reflects the effectiveness of a treatment. (C) 2014 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

引用

页码：1203 / 1204

页数：2

共 8 条

[1]

Braakhekke M, 2014, HUM REPROD

[2] Measuring outcomes in fertility trials: can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates? [J].

Clarke, Jane F. ;

van Rumste, Minouche M. E. ;

Farquhar, Cindy M. ;

Johnson, Neil P. ;

Mol, Ben W. J. ;

Herbison, Peter .

FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2010, 94 (05) :1647-1651

[3]

Dancet EAF, 2014, FERTIL STERIL, V101, P924, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.045

[4] Incomplete and inconsistent reporting of maternal and fetal outcomes in infertility treatment trials [J].

Dapuzzo, Lisa ;

Seitz, Faith E. ;

Dodson, William C. ;

Stetter, Christina ;

Kunselman, Allen R. ;

Legro, Richard S. .

FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2011, 95 (08) :2527-2530

[5] Patient perceptions of multiple gestations: An assessment of knowledge and risk aversion [J].

Grobman, WA ;

Milad, MP ;

Stout, J ;

Klock, SC .

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2001, 185 (04) :920-924

[6]

Land J. A., 2003, Human Reproduction (Oxford), V18, P455, DOI 10.1093/humrep/deg081

[7] Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials [J].

McLernon, D. J. ;

Harrild, K. ;

Bergh, C. ;

Davies, M. J. ;

de Neubourg, D. ;

Dumoulin, J. C. M. ;

Gerris, J. ;

Kremer, J. A. M. ;

Martikainen, H. ;

Mol, B. W. ;

Norman, R. J. ;

Thurin-Kjellberg, A. ;

Tiitinen, A. ;

van Montfoort, A. P. A. ;

van Peperstraten, A. M. ;

Van Royen, E. ;

Bhattacharya, S. .

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 341 :34

[8] Is twin pregnancy necessarily an adverse outcome of assisted reproductive technologies? [J].

van Wely, M. ;

Twisk, M. ;

Mol, B. W. ;

van der Veen, F. .

HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2006, 21 (11) :2736-2738

← 1 →