Temperature of embryo culture for assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: 'Infertility' is defined as the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse. One in six couples experience a delay in becoming pregnant. In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is one of the assisted reproductive techniques used to enable couples to achieve a live birth. One of the processes involved in IVF is embryo culture in an incubator, where a stable environment is created and maintained. The incubators are set at approximately 37°C, which is based on the human core body temperature, although several studies have shown that this temperature may in fact be lower in the female reproductive tract and that this could be beneficial. In this review we have included randomised controlled trials which compared different temperatures of embryo culture. OBJECTIVES: To assess different temperatures of embryo culture for human assisted reproduction, which may lead to higher live birth rates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases and trial registers: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, clinicaltrials.gov, The World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform search portal, DARE, Web of Knowledge, OpenGrey, LILACS database, PubMed and Google Scholar. Furthermore, we manually searched the references of relevant articles and contacted experts in the field to obtain additional data. We did not restrict the search by language or publication status. We performed the last search on 6 March 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of articles retrieved by the search. Full texts of potentially eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were obtained and screened. We included all RCTs which compared different temperatures of embryo culture in IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), with a minimum difference in temperature between the two incubators of ≥ 0.5°C. The search process is shown in the PRISMA flow chart. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies; the third review author resolved any disagreements. We contacted trial authors to provide additional data. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage. Clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy and adverse events were secondary outcomes. All extracted data were dichotomous outcomes, and odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs, with a total of 563 women, that compared incubation of embryos at 37.0°C or 37.1°C with a lower incubator temperature (37.0°C versus 36.6°C, 37.1°C versus 36.0°C, 37.0° versus 36.5°C). Live birth, miscarriage, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported. After additional information from the authors, we confirmed one study as having no adverse events; the other two studies did not report adverse events. We did not perform a meta-analysis as there were not enough studies included per outcome. Live birth was not graded since there were no data of interest available. The evidence for the primary outcome, miscarriage, was of very low quality. The evidence for the secondary outcomes, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy and multiple pregnancy was also of very low quality. We downgraded the evidence because of high risk of bias (for performance bias) and imprecision due to limited included studies and wide CIs.Only one study reported the primary outcome, live birth (n = 52). They performed randomisation at the level of oocytes and not per woman, and used a paired design whereby two embryos, one from 36.0°C and one from 37.0°C, were transferred. The data from this study were not interpretable in a meaningful way and therefore not presented. Only one study reported miscarriage. We are uncertain whether incubation at a lower temperature decreases the miscarriage (odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.55; 1 study, N = 412; very low-quality evidence).Of the two studies that reported clinical pregnancy, only one of them performed randomisation per woman. We are uncertain whether a lower temperature improves clinical pregnancy compared to 37°C for embryo incubation (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.60; 1 study, N = 412; very low-quality evidence). For the outcome, ongoing pregnancy, we are uncertain if a lower temperature is better than 37°C (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.62; 1 study, N = 412; very low quality-evidence). Multiple pregnancy was reported by two studies, one of which used a paired design, which made it impossible to report the data per temperature. We are uncertain if a temperature lower than 37°C reduces multiple pregnancy (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.07; 1 study, N = 412; very low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to make a conclusion regarding adverse events, as no studies reported data suitable for analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review evaluated different temperatures for embryo culture during IVF. There is a lack of evidence for the majority of outcomes in this review. Based on very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain if incubating at a lower temperature than 37°C improves pregnancy outcomes. More RCTs are needed for comparing different temperatures of embryo culture which require reporting of clinical outcomes as live birth, miscarriage, clinical pregnancy and adverse events.

Clinical trial registration in fertility trials - a case for improvement?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the prevalence and source of prospectively and retrospectively registered and unregistered trials in fertility treatments? SUMMARY ANSWER: Trial registration is low and does not appear to be changing over the 5 years studied. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Trial registration is associated with lower risk of bias than in unregistered trials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register was searched on 5 November 2015 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2010 to December 2014. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eligible trials included randomised women or men for fertility treatments, were published in full text, and written in English. Two reviewers independently assessed trial registration status for each trial, by searching the publication, trial registries, and by contacting the original authors. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: Of 693 eligible RCTS, only 44% were registered trials. Of 309 registered trials, 21.7% were prospectively registered, 15.8% were registered within 6 months of first patient enrolment and 62.5% were retrospectively registered trials. Prospective trial registration by country varied from 0% to 100%. The highest frequency of prospective trial registration amongst the top 10 publishing countries was 31% in the Netherlands. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Only English language trials were included in this review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Prospective trial registration is still low. Journals, funders and ethics committees could have a greater role to increase trial registration. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: University of Auckland. No competing interests.

Clinical trial registration was not an indicator for low risk of bias.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of registered trials and to evaluate the risk of bias between registered and unregistered clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility Group's specialized register was searched on November 5, 2015, for randomized controlled trials published from 2010 to 2014. Studies were selected if they had randomized women or men for fertility treatments, were published in full text and written in English. Two reviewers then independently assessed trial registration status for each trial, by searching the publication, trial registries, and by contacting the original authors. RESULTS: Of 693 eligible randomized controlled trials, only 44% were found to be registered. Unregistered clinical trials had smaller sample sizes than registered trials (P < 0.001). A random subsample of 125 registered and 125 unregistered trials was assessed for risk of bias using five of the Cochrane Risk of Bias "domains." Registered and unregistered trials differed in their risk of bias for random sequence generation (P = 0.001), allocation concealment (P = 0.003), and selective reporting (P < 0.001) but not blinding or incomplete outcome data (P > 0.05) domains. Only 54 (43.2%) of the 125 registered trials were registered prospectively. This study has the following limitations. Only English language trials were included in this review. We were unable to obtain protocols for the unregistered trials and therefore were unable to assess the risk of bias in the selective reporting domain. CONCLUSIONS: All available trials should be included in systematic reviews and assessed for risk of bias as there are both registered trials with high risk of bias and unregistered trials with low risk of bias and by excluding unregistered trials more than half of the available evidence will be lost.