BACKGROUND The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the association of progesterone elevation (PE) on the day of hCG administration with the probability of pregnancy in fresh, frozen-thawed and donor/recipient IVF cycles. METHODS A literature search in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, COCHRANE CENTRAL and ISI Web of Science was performed aiming to identify studies comparing the probability of pregnancy in patients with or without PE after ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins and GnRH analogues. Standard meta-analytic methodology was used for the synthesis of results and meta-regression for exploration of heterogeneity. RESULTS Sixty-three eligible studies were identified evaluating 55 199 fresh IVF cycles, nine studies evaluating 7229 frozen-thawed cycles and eight studies evaluating 1330 donor/recipient cycles. In fresh IVF cycles, a decreased probability of pregnancy achievement was present in women with PE (when PE was defined using a threshold ≥ 0.8 ng/ml) when compared with those without PE. The pooled effect sizes were 0.8-1.1 ng/ml: odds ratio (OR) = 0.79; 1.2-1.4 ng/ml: OR = 0.67; 1.5-1.75 ng/ml: OR = 0.64; 1.9-3.0 ng/ml: OR: 0.68 (P < 0.05 in all cases). No adverse effect of PE on achieving pregnancy was observed in the frozen-thawed and the donor/recipient cycles. CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis of more than 60 000 cycles, it can be supported that PE on the day of hCG administration is associated with a decreased probability of pregnancy achievement in fresh IVF cycles in women undergoing ovarian stimulation using GnRH analogues and gonadotrophins. On the other hand, an adverse effect of PE does not seem to be present in frozen-thawed and donor/recipient cycles.

Objective To identify the source (press releases or news) of distortions, exaggerations, or changes to the main conclusions drawn from research that could potentially influence a reader’s health related behaviour.Design Retrospective quantitative content analysis.Setting Journal articles, press releases, and related news, with accompanying simulations.Sample Press releases (n=462) on biomedical and health related science issued by 20 leading UK universities in 2011, alongside their associated peer reviewed research papers and news stories (n=668).Main outcome measures Advice to readers to change behaviour, causal statements drawn from correlational research, and inference to humans from animal research that went beyond those in the associated peer reviewed papers.Results 40% (95% confidence interval 33% to 46%) of the press releases contained exaggerated advice, 33% (26% to 40%) contained exaggerated causal claims, and 36% (28% to 46%) contained exaggerated inference to humans from animal research. When press releases contained such exaggeration, 58% (95% confidence interval 48% to 68%), 81% (70% to 93%), and 86% (77% to 95%) of news stories, respectively, contained similar exaggeration, compared with exaggeration rates of 17% (10% to 24%), 18% (9% to 27%), and 10% (0% to 19%) in news when the press releases were not exaggerated. Odds ratios for each category of analysis were 6.5 (95% confidence interval 3.5 to 12), 20 (7.6 to 51), and 56 (15 to 211). At the same time, there was little evidence that exaggeration in press releases increased the uptake of news.Conclusions Exaggeration in news is strongly associated with exaggeration in press releases. Improving the accuracy of academic press releases could represent a key opportunity for reducing misleading health related news.

Objective To examine whether pretreatment emotional distress in women is associated with achievement of pregnancy after a cycle of assisted reproductive technology. Design Meta-analysis of prospective psychosocial studies. Data sources PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, PsychNET, ISI Web of Knowledge, and ISI Web of Science were searched for articles published from 1985 to March 2010 (inclusive). We also undertook a hand search of reference lists and contacted 29 authors. Eligible studies were prospective studies reporting a test of the association between pretreatment emotional distress (anxiety or depression) and pregnancy in women undergoing a single cycle of assisted reproductive technology. Review methods Two authors independently assessed the studies for eligibility and quality (using criteria adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale) and extracted data. Authors contributed additional data not included in original publication. Results Fourteen studies with 3583 infertile women undergoing a cycle of fertility treatment were included in the meta-analysis. The effect size used was the standardised mean difference (adjusted for small sample size) in pretreatment anxiety or depression (priority on anxiety where both measured) between women who achieved a pregnancy (defined as a positive pregnancy test, positive fetal heart scan, or live birth) and those who did not. Pretreatment emotional distress was not associated with treatment outcome after a cycle of assisted reproductive technology (standardised mean difference −0.04, 95% confidence interval −0.11 to 0.03 (fixed effects model); heterogeneity I²=14%, P=0.30). Subgroup analyses according to previous experience of assisted reproductive technology, composition of the not pregnant group, and timing of the emotional assessment were not significant. The effect size did not vary according to study quality, but a significant subgroup analysis on timing of the pregnancy test, a contour enhanced funnel plot, and Egger's test indicated the presence of moderate publication bias. ConclusionsThe findings of this meta-analysis should reassure women and doctors that emotional distress caused by fertility problems or other life events cooccurring with treatment will not compromise the chance of becoming pregnant.

The evidence presented in this guideline shows that providing routine psychosocial care is associated with or has potential to reduce stress and concerns about medical procedures and improve lifestyle outcomes, fertility-related knowledge, patient well-being and compliance with treatment. As only 45 (36.0%) of the 125 recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the guideline group formulated recommendations to guide future research with the aim of increasing the body of evidence.

The clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies (CUA), and the benefits of hysteroscopic resection of a uterine septum, were evaluated. Studies comparing reproductive and obstetric outcome of patients with and without CUA and of patients who had and had not undergone hysteroscopic resection of a uterine septum, were evaluated. Meta-analysis of studies indicated that the pregnancy rate was decreased in women with CUA (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00; marginally significant finding, P = 0.05). The spontaneous abortion rate was increased in women with CUA (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.15). Preterm delivery rates (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.59 to 3.08), malpresentation at delivery (RR 4.75, 95% CI 3.29 to 6.84), low birth weight (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.49) and perinatal mortality rates (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.42) were significantly higher in women with CUA. Hysteroscopic removal of a septum was associated with a reduced probability of spontaneous abortion (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.55) compared with untreated women. Presence of CUA might be associated with a detrimental effect on the probability of pregnancy achievement, spontaneous abortion and obstetric outcome. Hysteroscopic removal of a septum may reduce the probability of a spontaneous abortion.

No abstract

The role of progesterone elevation on in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome has remained a debatable issue for several years. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether progesterone elevation on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) administration is associated with the probability of pregnancy. Eligible studies were considered those in which patients did not participate more than once. A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL identified 12 eligible studies, 10 of which were retrospective. The majority (n = 10) of these studies did not detect a statistically significant association between progesterone elevation and the probability of pregnancy. Meta-analysis was performed only for the studies (n = 5) that provided data on clinical pregnancy per patient reaching hCG administration for final oocyte maturation. No statistically significant association between progesterone elevation and the probability of clinical pregnancy was detected (Odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.53-1.06; P = 0.10). This finding persisted in the sensitivity analyses performed, which excluded the studies that did not report clearly that measurement of progesterone did not affect patients' management and those that did not report definition of clinical pregnancy. In addition, subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of type of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone GnRH analogue used and on the value of serum threshold used to classify patients in those with or without progesterone elevation. These analyses, however, did not materially change the results obtained. In conclusion, the best available evidence does not support an association between progesterone elevation on the day of hCG administration and the probability of clinical pregnancy in women undergoing ovarian stimulation with GnRH analogues and gonadotrophins for IVF.

No abstract