What is the optimal GnRH antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation during ART treatment? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several GnRH antagonist protocols are currently used during COS in the context of ART treatments; however, questions remain regarding whether these protocols are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: A systematic review followed by a pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed. The systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of direct comparative data according to the PRISMA guidelines evaluated the effectiveness of different GnRH antagonist protocols (fixed Day 5/6 versus flexible, ganirelix versus cetrorelix, with or without hormonal pretreatment) on the probability of live birth and ongoing pregnancy after COS during ART treatment. A frequentist network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect comparisons (using the long GnRH agonist protocol as the comparator) was also performed to enhance the precision of the estimates. SEARCH METHODS: The systematic literature search was performed using Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL), SCOPUS and Web of Science (WOS), from inception until 23 November 2021. The search terms comprised three different MeSH terms that should be present in the identified studies: GnRH antagonist; assisted reproduction treatment; randomized controlled trial (RCT). Only studies published in English were included. OUTCOMES: The search strategy resulted in 6738 individual publications, of which 102 were included in the systematic review (corresponding to 75 unique studies) and 73 were included in the meta-analysis. Most studies were of low quality. One study compared a flexible protocol with a fixed Day 5 protocol and the remaining RCTs with a fixed Day 6 protocol. There was a lack of data regarding live birth when comparing the flexible and fixed GnRH antagonist protocols or cetrorelix and ganirelix. No significant difference in live birth rate was observed between the different pretreatment regimens versus no pretreatment or between the different pretreatment protocols. A flexible GnRH antagonist protocol resulted in a significantly lower OPR compared with a fixed Day 5/6 protocol (relative risk (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94, I2 = 0%; 6 RCTs; n = 907 participants; low certainty evidence). There were insufficient data for a comparison of cetrorelix and ganirelix for OPR. OCP pretreatment was associated with a lower OPR compared with no pretreatment intervention (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92; I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, n = 1318 participants; low certainty evidence). Furthermore, in the network meta-analysis, a fixed protocol with OCP resulted in a significantly lower OPR than a fixed protocol with no pretreatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; moderate quality evidence). The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores suggested that the fixed protocol with no pretreatment is the antagonist protocol most likely (84%) to result in the highest OPR. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between fixed/flexible or OCP pretreatment/no pretreatment interventions regarding other outcomes, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and miscarriage rates. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Available evidence, mostly of low quality and certainty, suggests that different antagonist protocols should not be considered as equivalent for clinical decision-making. More trials are required to assess the comparative effectiveness of ganirelix versus cetrorelix, the effect of different pretreatment interventions (e.g. progestins or oestradiol) or the effect of different criteria for initiation of the antagonist in the flexible protocol. Furthermore, more studies are required examining the optimal GnRH antagonist protocol in women with high or low response to ovarian stimulation.

Cochrane Centralised Search Service showed high sensitivity identifying randomized controlled trials: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) is compiled from a number of sources, including PubMed and Embase. Since 2017, we have increased the number of sources feeding into CENTRAL and improved the efficiency of our processes through the use of application programming interfaces, machine learning, and crowdsourcing.Our objectives were twofold: (1) Assess the effectiveness of Cochrane's centralized search and screening processes to correctly identify references to published reports which are eligible for inclusion in Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). (2) Identify opportunities to improve the performance of Cochrane's centralized search and screening processes to identify references to eligible trials. METHODS: We identified all references to RCTs (either published journal articles or trial registration records) with a publication or registration date between 1st January 2017 and 31st December 2018 that had been included in a Cochrane intervention review. We then viewed an audit trail for each included reference to determine if it had been identified by our centralized search process and subsequently added to CENTRAL. RESULTS: We identified 650 references to included studies with a publication year of 2017 or 2018. Of those, 634 (97.5%) had been captured by Cochrane's Centralised Search Service. Sixteen references had been missed by the Cochrane's Centralised Search Service: six had PubMed-not-MEDLINE status, four were missed by the centralized Embase search, three had been misclassified by Cochrane Crowd, one was from a journal not indexed in MEDLINE or Embase, one had only been added to Embase in 2019, and one reference had been rejected by the automated RCT machine learning classifier. Of the sixteen missed references, eight were the main or only publication to the trial in the review in which it had been included. CONCLUSION: This analysis has shown that Cochrane's centralized search and screening processes are highly sensitive. It has also helped us to understand better why some references to eligible RCTs have been missed. The CSS is playing a critical role in helping to populate CENTRAL and is moving us toward making CENTRAL a comprehensive repository of RCTs.

Cost-effectiveness of noninvasive liver fibrosis tests for treatment decisions in patients with chronic hepatitis B in the UK: systematic review and economic evaluation.

We compared the cost-effectiveness of various noninvasive tests (NITs) in patients with chronic hepatitis B and elevated transaminases and/or viral load who would normally undergo liver biopsy to inform treatment decisions. We searched various databases until April 2012. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of various NITs using a bivariate random-effects model. We constructed a probabilistic decision analytical model to estimate health care costs and outcomes quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) using data from the meta-analysis, literature, and national UK data. We compared the cost-effectiveness of four decision-making strategies: testing with NITs and treating patients with fibrosis stage ≥F2, testing with liver biopsy and treating patients with ≥F2, treat none (watchful waiting) and treat all irrespective of fibrosis. Treating all patients without prior fibrosis assessment had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £28,137 per additional QALY gained for HBeAg-negative patients. For HBeAg-positive patients, using Fibroscan was the most cost-effective option with an ICER of £23,345. The base case results remained robust in the majority of sensitivity analyses, but were sensitive to changes in the ≥ F2 prevalence and the benefit of treatment in patients with F0-F1. For HBeAg-negative patients, strategies excluding NITs were the most cost-effective: treating all patients regardless of fibrosis level if the high cost-effectiveness threshold of £30,000 is accepted; watchful waiting if not. For HBeAg-positive patients, using Fibroscan to identify and treat those with ≥F2 was the most cost-effective option.

Is analytical psychology a religion? Jung's search for a substitute for lost faith.

Analytical psychology does not aim at curing neurotic symptoms, but at bringing about a change in the patient's attitude to him or her self, and therefore to life in general. This new attitude can be described as religious, but it has nothing to do with creeds or conventional forms of worship. Analytical psychology is not a religon, but can be described as a prolegomenon to religion or religion in statu nascendi.

Safety, usefulness and acceptability of fibreoptic bronchoscopy in the elderly.

The safety and usefulness of fibreoptic bronchoscopy in the elderly was assessed retrospectively in 204 consecutive patients aged 70 and over. One third of patients were examined as day cases. A bronchial tumour was seen in 67% patients, and biopsies showed malignancy in 78% of these cases. Certain knowledge of a diagnosis of bronchial carcinoma helped in the management of the elderly patient. Fibreoptic bronchoscopy proved to be safe in the presence of marked ventilatory impairment. A prospective questionnaire study in 114 patients showed that most patients found the procedure acceptable and would agree to a repeat if necessary and this was largely independent of age.