ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The 2024 Australian evidence-based guideline for unexplained infertility provides clinicians with evidence-based recommendations for the optimal diagnostic workup for infertile couples to establish the diagnosis of unexplained infertility and optimal therapeutic approach to treat couples diagnosed with unexplained infertility in the Australian health care setting. The guideline recommendations were adapted for the Australian context from the rigorous, comprehensive European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) 2023 Evidence-based guideline: unexplained infertility, using the ADAPTE process and have been approved by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline includes 40 evidence-based recommendations, 21 practice points and three research recommendations addressing: definition - defining infertility and frequency of intercourse, infertility and age, female and male factor infertility; diagnosis - ovulation, ovarian reserve, tubal factor, uterine factor, laparoscopy, cervical/vaginal factor, male factor, additional testing for systemic conditions; and treatment - expectant management, active treatment, mechanical-surgical procedures, alternative therapeutic approaches, quality of life. CHANGES IN ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINE: This guideline refines the definition of unexplained infertility and addresses basic diagnostic procedures for infertility assessment not considered in previous guidelines on unexplained infertility. For therapeutic approaches, consideration of evidence quality, efficacy, safety and, in the Australian setting, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength were integrated across multidisciplinary expertise and consumer perspectives in adapting recommendations to the Australian context by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, which had not been used in past guidelines on unexplained infertility to formulate recommendations. The Australian process also included an established data integrity check to ensure evidence could be trusted to guide practice. Practice points were added and expanded to consider the Australian setting. No evidence-based recommendations were underpinned by high quality evidence, with most having low or very low quality evidence. In this context, research recommendations were made including those for the Australian context. The full guideline and technical report are publicly available online and can be accessed at https://www.monash.edu/medicine/mchri/infertility and are supported by extensive translation resources, including the free patient ASKFertility mobile application (https://www.askfertility.org/).
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The present post hoc analysis aims to study the neonatal data of singletons born from three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the outcome of day 3 and day 5 transfers. METHODS: Our analysis included 208 liveborn singletons from three existing RCTs (publication dates 2004, 2005, and 2006), 93 children from cleavage-stage transfers and 115 from blastocyst-stage transfers. Vanishing twins were excluded from the analysis. Singleton birthweight was the primary outcome measure. Gestational age and gender of the newborn were accounted for in the multiple regression analysis, along with other confounding factors, such as maternal age, BMI, parity, and smoking behavior. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in gestational age (median, interquartile range) between cleavage-stage transfer (275 days; 267-281) and blastocyst-stage transfer (277 days; 270-281; p = 0.22). Singleton birthweight (median, interquartile range) was not significantly different between cleavage-stage transfer (3330 g; 3020-3610) and blastocyst-stage transfer (3236 g; 2930-3630; p = 0.40), even following multivariable regression analysis to control for potential maternal and newborn confounders. CONCLUSION: The gestational age and birthweight were not significantly different after cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage transfers. One limitation to be recognized is the age of the data, with original data collection dates from 2001 to 2004. Additionally, the RCTs used for the present analysis have a fairly young age restriction.