Effectiveness of a web-based virtual journal club to promote medical education (Web-Ed): protocol of a multicentre pragmatic randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: A journal club (JC) is a commonly used medical educational tool. Videoconferencing technology can facilitate the delivery of JCs, however, there remains no evidence on the role of web-based virtual JCs in promoting the acquisition and retention of medical knowledge. The Web-Ed trial aims to evaluate the educational benefits, feasibility and acceptability of web-based virtual JCs compared with traditional face-to-face ones. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Web-Ed is a multicentre pragmatic parallel-group randomised trial across teaching hospitals within the UK National Health Service (NHS). We will enrol qualified doctors or medical students who are >18 years old, proficient in English and able to use online videoconferencing software. Block randomisation will be used to allocate participants in 1:1 ratio to either intervention group. Both groups will be presented with the same educational material and follow a standardised JC structure hosted by nominated moderators and medical faculty members.The primary outcome is the difference in participants' knowledge acquisition and retention 7 days after the JCs evaluated using standardised multiple-choice questions. We will report secondarily on the feasibility and acceptability of the JCs using Likert scale questionnaires. Assuming a 30% drop-out rate, we aim to enrol 75 participants to detect a 20% improvement in knowledge acquisition at 80% power and 5% significance. We will report using mean difference or risk ratio with 95% CIs and assess significance using parametric/non-parametric testing. Where relevant, we will adjust for predetermined characteristics (age, grade of training and session duration) using multivariate regression analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Web-Ed was designed by doctors in training to address their learning needs and evaluate the preferred mode of learning. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant scientific conferences. The trial has been approved by the NHS Health Regulation Authority (21/HRA/3361). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18036769.

A comparison of fertility preservation outcomes in patients who froze oocytes, embryos, or ovarian tissue for medically indicated circumstances: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare obstetric outcomes in patients cryopreserving reproductive cells or tissues before gonadotoxic therapy. DESIGN: A literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines on Embase, Medline, and Web of Science. Studies reporting obstetric outcomes in cancer patients who completed cryopreservation of oocyte, embryo, or ovarian tissue were included. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Cancer patients attempting pregnancy using cryopreserved cells or tissues frozen before cancer therapy. INTERVENTION(S): Oocyte, embryo, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation for fertility preservation in cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The total numbers of clinical pregnancies, live births, and miscarriages in women attempting pregnancy using cryopreserved reproductive cells or tissues were calculated. A meta-analysis determined the effect size of each intervention. RESULT(S): The search returned 4,038 unique entries. Thirty-eight eligible studies were analyzed. The clinical pregnancy rates were 34.9%, 49.0%, and 43.8% for oocyte, embryo, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively. No significant differences were found among groups. The live birth rates were 25.8%, 35.3%, and 32.3% for oocyte, embryo, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively, with no significant differences among groups. The miscarriage rates were 9.2%, 16.9%, and 7.5% for oocyte, embryo, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively. Significantly fewer miscarriages occurred with ovarian tissue cryopreservation than with embryo cryopreservation. CONCLUSION(S): This enquiry is required to counsel cancer patients wishing to preserve fertility. Although the limitations of this study include heterogeneity, lack of quality studies, and low utilization rates, it serves as a starting point for comparison of reproductive and obstetric outcomes in patients returning for family-planning after gonadotoxic therapy.