FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2994804923> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2994804923 endingPage "2380" @default.
• W2994804923 startingPage "2372" @default.
• W2994804923 abstract "Abstract STUDY QUESTION Do randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial scratching suffer from methodological issues including insufficient trial registration, statistical errors or irreproducibility, randomisation errors or miscellaneous issues? SUMMARY ANSWER The majority of RCTs investigating endometrial scratching have methodological issues. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A large number of small RCTs investigating the effectiveness of endometrial scratching prior to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intrauterine insemination (IUI)/intercourse have reported favourable findings. Subsequently, systematic reviews incorporating these RCTs yielded meta-analyses in favour of endometrial scratching. Endometrial scratching has been widely adopted by infertility specialists around the world. Recently, an international RCT including 1364 women reported no benefit from endometrial scratching before IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We evaluated several methodological issues of RCTs investigating the effectiveness of endometrial scratching prior to IVF and IUI/intercourse. We identified 25 RCTs for IVF and 12 RCTs for IUI/intercourse with full-text publication. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS We assessed the RCTs on the following criteria: adequacy of trial registration, statistical issues (description of statistical methods and reproducibility of univariable statistical analysis), excessive similarity or difference in baseline characteristics that is not compatible with chance (Monte Carlo simulations and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) and miscellaneous methodological issues. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Of 25 RCTs evaluating endometrial scratching prior to IVF, only eight (32%) had adequate trial registration. In total, 10 (40%) RCTs had issues regarding statistical methods. Nine (69%, 13 applicable) RCTs had at least one inconsistency between reported and reproduced univariable statistical analysis for categorical baseline/intermediate characteristics. Statistical results of at least one outcome were not reproducible in 14 (74%, 19 applicable) RCTs. Only two (8%) RCTs had none of the above issues. Suggested by the simulations, these RCTs did not significantly violate the null hypothesis that the baseline characteristics were the results of a properly conducted randomisation process (P = 0.4395). Of 12 IUI/intercourse RCTs, only 2 (17%) had adequate trial registration. In total, five (42%) studies had issues of statistical methods. Inconsistency between reported and reproduced univariable analysis for baseline/intermediate categorical variable(s) was found in four (57%, 7 applicable) RCTs. Statistical analysis was not reproducible for at least one outcome in eight (80%, 10 applicable) studies. All RCTs had at least one of the above issues. These RCTs were inconsistent with the null hypothesis that their baseline characteristics were the results of proper randomised allocation (P = 1.659*10−7). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We were unable to assess RCTs which were not published as full-text papers. We could not analyse individual participant data to investigate possible reasons for statistical inconsistencies. The method to infer the likelihood of proper random sampling rests on assumptions including independent baseline characteristics, simple randomisation and no publication bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The methodological issues common to RCTs evaluating endometrial scratching may have biased the results of the trials. Further development and validation of these novel methods may be helpful for the critical appraisal of RCTs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No external funding was sought to support this work. B.W.M. is supported by a National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. D.W. is supported by a grant from the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Austria (PMU Research Fund—PMU FFF Number: L-18/02/006-WET) and by Drs Haackert Foundation, Germany. S.L. is an author of a trial included in this study, an author of an included systematic review and a Cochrane editor. All other authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A" @default.
• W2994804923 created "2019-12-26" @default.
• W2994804923 creator A5001037085 @default.
• W2994804923 creator A5015411385 @default.
• W2994804923 creator A5025464312 @default.
• W2994804923 creator A5053933535 @default.
• W2994804923 creator A5074346695 @default.
• W2994804923 creator A5082289384 @default.
• W2994804923 creator A5090339348 @default.
• W2994804923 date "2019-12-01" @default.
• W2994804923 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2994804923 title "Randomised controlled trials evaluating endometrial scratching: assessment of methodological issues" @default.
• W2994804923 cites W1488278893 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W1540803043 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W1843782734 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W1910527617 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W1912669516 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W1967836306 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W1973497290 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W1982092668 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2016882017 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2024876959 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2029295976 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2032888788 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2047347730 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2051039258 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2085604483 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2086131428 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2095989182 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2107952936 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2109966386 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2136395336 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2137488279 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2139294235 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2141759713 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2141790857 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2142154203 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2167681711 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2169182249 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2183132559 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2250548332 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2266141901 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2289116456 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2336757552 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2346881173 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2462670685 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2468027681 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2501943130 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2522319669 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2556504743 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2607256766 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2607280949 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2610182280 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2618908562 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2757645790 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2760238651 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2767141677 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2768550879 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2771624997 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2772961472 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2773476648 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2789475293 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2804230950 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2899712514 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2901760691 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2902262051 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2909654500 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2913330914 @default.
• W2994804923 cites W2914679210 @default.
• W2994804923 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez207" @default.
• W2994804923 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31825478" @default.
• W2994804923 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2994804923 type Work @default.
• W2994804923 sameAs 2994804923 @default.
• W2994804923 citedByCount "26" @default.
• W2994804923 countsByYear W29948049232019 @default.
• W2994804923 countsByYear W29948049232020 @default.
• W2994804923 countsByYear W29948049232021 @default.
• W2994804923 countsByYear W29948049232022 @default.
• W2994804923 countsByYear W29948049232023 @default.
• W2994804923 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2994804923 hasAuthorship W2994804923A5001037085 @default.
• W2994804923 hasAuthorship W2994804923A5015411385 @default.
• W2994804923 hasAuthorship W2994804923A5025464312 @default.
• W2994804923 hasAuthorship W2994804923A5053933535 @default.
• W2994804923 hasAuthorship W2994804923A5074346695 @default.
• W2994804923 hasAuthorship W2994804923A5082289384 @default.
• W2994804923 hasAuthorship W2994804923A5090339348 @default.
• W2994804923 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2994804923 hasConcept C131872663 @default.
• W2994804923 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2994804923 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2994804923 hasConcept C24890656 @default.
• W2994804923 hasConcept C2780196728 @default.
• W2994804923 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2994804923 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2994804923 hasConceptScore W2994804923C121332964 @default.
• W2994804923 hasConceptScore W2994804923C131872663 @default.

• next