BackgroundQuality control programs are necessary to maintain good clinical practice. Embryo grading has been described as one of the external quality assurance schemes. Although the evaluation of embryos is based on the assessment of morphological characteristics, considerable intra- and inter-observer variability has been described. In this multicentre study, the variability in the embryo evaluation has been evaluated using morphological characteristics on day 1, day 2 and day 3 of embryo development.MethodsFive embryologists of four different IVF centers participated in this study. Multilevel images of embryos were presented on a website at different time points to evaluate intra-and inter-observer agreement in the assessment of embryo morphology. The embryos were evaluated on day 1, day 2 and day 3 of their development and each embryologist had to decide if the embryo had to be transferred, cryopreserved or discarded.ResultsBoth intra-observer agreement and inter-observer agreement were good to excellent for the position of the pronuclei on day 1, the number of blastomeres on day 2 and day 3 and the clinical decision (transfer, cryopreservation, discard). For all other characteristics (size of pronuclei, presence of cytoplasomic halo, degree of fragmentation and size of blastomeres) the intra- and inter-observer agreement was moderate to very poor.ConclusionsMono- or multicentre quality control on embryo scoring by morphological assessment can easily be performed through the design of a simple website. In the future the website design can be adapted to generate statistical feedback upon scoring and can even include a training module.

BACKGROUNDPrevious experiments have shown that granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), quantified in the follicular fluid (FF) of individual oocytes, correlates with the potential for an ongoing pregnancy of the corresponding fertilized oocytes among selected transferred embryos. Here we present a proof of concept study aimed at evaluating the impact of including FF G-CSF quantification in the embryo transfer decisions.METHODSFF G-CSF was quantified with the Luminex XMap technology in 523 individual FF samples corresponding to 116 fresh transferred embryos, 275 frozen embryos and 131 destroyed embryos from 78 patients undergoing ICSI.RESULTSFollicular G-CSF was highly predictive of subsequent implantation. The receiving operator characteristics curve methodology showed its higher discriminatory power to predict ongoing pregnancy in multivariate logistic regression analysis for FF G-CSF compared with embryo morphology [0.77 (0.69–0.83), P < 0.001 versus 0.66 (0.58–0.73), P = 0.01)]. Embryos were classified by their FF G-CSF concentration: Class I over 30 pg/ml (a highest positive predictive value for implantation), Class II from 30 to 18.4 pg/ml and Class III <18.4 pg/ml (a highest negative predictive value). Embryos derived from Class I follicles had a significantly higher implantation rate (IR) than those from Class II and III follicles (36 versus 16.6 and 6%, P < 0.001). Embryos derived from Class I follicles with an optimal morphology reached an IR of 54%. Frozen-thawed embryos transfer derived from Class I follicles had an IR of 37% significantly higher than those from Class II and III follicles, respectively, of 8 and 5% (P < 0.001). Thirty-five per cent of the frozen embryos but also 10% of the destroyed embryos were derived from G-CSF Class I follicles. Non-optimal embryos appear to have been transferred in 28% (22/78) of the women, and their pregnancy rate was significantly lower than that of women who received at least one optimal embryo (18 versus 36%, P = 0.04).CONCLUSIONSMonitoring FF G-CSF for the selection of embryos with a better potential for pregnancy might improve the effectiveness of IVF by reducing the time and cost required for obtaining a pregnancy.

BackgroundNo evidence exists to date on which to base the selection of outcome measures for assessing nutritional interventions in critically ill patients. We conducted a systematic literature review to describe the outcomes used in recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing nutritional interventions in critically ill patients. Our objective was to set the foundation for the development of a core set of outcome measures for use in future RCTs.MethodsWe searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for RCTs of nutritional interventions in critically ill patients aged 18 years or older, published and/or registered between January 2000 and August 2018. Outcomes were divided into six categories (mortality, length of stay, duration of organ dysfunction, complications, functional outcomes, and others) and analysed according to the study characteristics and publication year.ResultsOf the 885 references retrieved, 170 were included in the review. Of these, 136 (80%) defined a primary outcome, 114 (67%) defined secondary outcomes (two per study on average), and 34 (20%) did not specify whether outcomes were primary or secondary. We identified 24 different outcomes in all, of which 19 were primary. Complications were the most widely used primary outcome (65/136, 48%). Mortality was the primary outcome in 17/136 (13%) studies, with six different timepoints. The main secondary outcomes were length of stay (90/114, 79%), mortality (82/114, 72%), and duration of organ dysfunction (75/114, 65%).ConclusionsThis systematic review highlights the heterogeneity of outcomes used in recent randomized controlled trials evaluating nutritional interventions in critically ill patients. The results of our systematic review may have implications for designing future RCTs of nutritional interventions in the ICU.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2303-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Several reports have described an association between the presence of soluble human leukocyte antigen G (sHLA-G) in human embryo culture supernatants (ES) and implantation success. However, not all studies agree with these findings. To further document this debate, a multicentre blinded study was performed to investigate, on a large number of IVF ES and ICSI ES, whether sHLA-G is a useful criterion for embryo selection before transfer. A total of 1405 ES from 355 patients were collected from three assisted reproductive technique (ART) centres and evaluated for their sHLA-G content in a single laboratory, using a chemiluminescence enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In only one centre was a significant association between sHLA-G-positive ES and successful implantation established (P = 0.0379), whereas no such association was observed in the other centres. It was found that the percentages and concentrations of sHLA-G-positive ES varied between centres, depending on culture media and ART conditions. The percentage of sHLA-G-positive ES was significantly higher in IVF ES than ICSI ES (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01 for two centres). These data demonstrate that substantial variations of sHLA-G content in ES occur between different ART centres, highlighting the influence of several technical parameters that differ from one centre to another.

We performed a literature review of existing benchmarking projects of health facilities to explore (1) the rationales for those projects, (2) the motivation for health facilities to participate, (3) the indicators used and (4) the success and threat factors linked to those projects. We studied both peer-reviewed and grey literature. We examined 23 benchmarking projects of different medical specialities. The majority of projects used a mix of structure, process and outcome indicators. For some projects, participants had a direct or indirect financial incentive to participate (such as reimbursement by Medicaid/Medicare or litigation costs related to quality of care). A positive impact was reported for most projects, mainly in terms of improvement of practice and adoption of guidelines and, to a lesser extent, improvement in communication. Only 1 project reported positive impact in terms of clinical outcomes. Success factors and threats are linked to both the benchmarking process (such as organisation of meetings, link with existing projects) and indicators used (such as adjustment for diagnostic-related groups). The results of this review will help coordinators of a benchmarking project to set it up successfully.

BackgroundThere is an increasing need to evaluate the production and impact of medical research produced by institutions. Many indicators exist, yet we do not have enough information about their relevance. The objective of this systematic review was (1) to identify all the indicators that could be used to measure the output and outcome of medical research carried out in institutions and (2) enlist their methodology, use, positive and negative points.MethodologyWe have searched 3 databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science) using the following keywords: [Research outcome* OR research output* OR bibliometric* OR scientometric* OR scientific production] AND [indicator* OR index* OR evaluation OR metrics]. We included articles presenting, discussing or evaluating indicators measuring the scientific production of an institution. The search was conducted by two independent authors using a standardised data extraction form. For each indicator we extracted its definition, calculation, its rationale and its positive and negative points. In order to reduce bias, data extraction and analysis was performed by two independent authors.FindingsWe included 76 articles. A total of 57 indicators were identified. We have classified those indicators into 6 categories: 9 indicators of research activity, 24 indicators of scientific production and impact, 5 indicators of collaboration, 7 indicators of industrial production, 4 indicators of dissemination, 8 indicators of health service impact. The most widely discussed and described is the h-index with 31 articles discussing it.DiscussionThe majority of indicators found are bibliometric indicators of scientific production and impact. Several indicators have been developed to improve the h-index. This indicator has also inspired the creation of two indicators to measure industrial production and collaboration. Several articles propose indicators measuring research impact without detailing a methodology for calculating them. Many bibliometric indicators identified have been created but have not been used or further discussed.

Purpose: In order to improve the quality of care in Cancer Centers (CC) and designate Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), the Organization for European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched an Accreditation and Designation (A&D) program. The program facilitates the collection of defined data and the assessment of cancer center quality. This study analyzes the results of the first 10 European centers that entered the program. Methods:The assessment included 927 items divided across qualitative and quantitative questionnaires. Data collected during self-assessment and peer-review from the 10 first participating centers were combined in a database for comparative analysis using simple statistics. Quantitative and qualitative results were validated by auditors during the peer review visits. Results: Volumes of various functions and activities dedicatedto care, research, and education varied widely among centers. There were no significant differences in resources for radiology, radiotherapy, pathologic diagnostic, and surgery. Differences were observed in the use of clinical pathways but not for the practices of holding multidisciplinary team meetings and conforming to guidelines. Regarding human resources, main differences were in the composition and number of supportive care and research staff. All 10 centers applied as CCCs; five obtained the label, and five were designated as CCs. Conclusion:The OECI A&D program allows comparisons between centers with regard to management, research, care, education, and designation as CCs or CCCs. Through the peer review system, recommendations for improvements are given. Assessing the added value of the program, as well as research and patient treatment outcomes, is the next step.

Background People who have migrated or with a language barrier may face significant hurdles in accessing health care. Some apps have been specifically developed to facilitate the dialogue between health care professionals and people who have migrated who have low-level language proficiency or to promote health among people who have migrated. Objective We conducted a systematic review to investigate development, acceptability, and effectiveness of these types of apps. Methods We conducted a search of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases. We included all study designs (qualitative, quantitative, mixed) reporting development, evaluation of efficacy, or acceptability of apps facilitating dialogue with a health professional or promoting health for people who have migrated, minorities, or tourists with a language barrier, using any outcome. Two researchers selected the studies independently. We collected general information about the app, information about health literacy and cultural adaptation, information about the development of the app, evidence on acceptability or efficacy, and information on app use. Data were collected by 2 researchers independently and results were reviewed to verify agreement and reported according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis). Results Positive results for translation apps included better communication, but with possible limitations, and reduced consultation time. Positive results for health promotion apps included improved quality of life and better management of chronic illnesses. Conclusions Overall, the apps had good levels of acceptability, though only half had their efficacy evaluated. In those evaluations, the endpoints were mostly related to reported behavior change and knowledge improvement, which is common for evaluations of health promotion programs. In the future, as more health apps are created, it is essential that apps that claim to have a public health objective undergo a rigorous evaluation of their acceptability, efficacy, and actual use. Indicators of outcomes beyond changes in behavior and knowledge should be reported; change in health status or access to care should also be reported. This systematic review has helped us note the characteristics associated with improved acceptability and efficacy, which can be helpful for the development of future apps.