Measuring outcomes in fertility trials: Can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates?

Jane F. Clarke, Minouche M E Van Rumste, Cindy M. Farquhar, Neil P. Johnson, Ben W J Mol, Peter Herbison

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether the estimates of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in reproductive medicine differ when either clinical pregnancy or live birth is used as the outcome measure. Design: Metaanalysis. Setting: We analyzed RCTs in reproductive medicine found in systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library that reported on both clinical pregnancy and live birth. Patient(s): Subfertile couples. Intervention(s): For each individual RCT, data on clinical pregnancy and live birth were extracted. Main Outcome Measure(s): We compared the outcome of each study by calculating a kappa-statistic (statistically significant treatment effective or not) and by comparing the odds ratio by calculating the ratio of the odds ratios (ROR). Result(s): We found 67 systematic reviews, of which 42 reported on pregnancy and live birth. These 42 reviews included 654 RCTs, of which 143 (22%) reported both on pregnancy and live birth. The pregnancy loss rates in the treatment and control groups were comparable. Of the 143 RCTs, the conclusion based on pregnancy rate and live birth rate was comparable (kappa value of 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.94). The odds ratios estimating treatment effect from pregnancy and live birth were also comparable (ROR, 1.01, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.12). Conclusion(s): Only a minority of randomized clinical trials in reproductive medicine report on live birth. Conclusions on the effectiveness of a treatment based on either clinical pregnancy or live birth as endpoints are comparable.

LanguageEnglish
Pages1647-1651
Number of pages5
JournalFertility and Sterility
Volume94
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2010

Keywords

  • Surrogate outcome
  • clinical pregnancy
  • infertility
  • live birth
  • subfertility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Cite this

Clarke, J. F., Van Rumste, M. M. E., Farquhar, C. M., Johnson, N. P., Mol, B. W. J., & Herbison, P. (2010). Measuring outcomes in fertility trials: Can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates? Fertility and Sterility, 94(5), 1647-1651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.11.018
Clarke, Jane F. ; Van Rumste, Minouche M E ; Farquhar, Cindy M. ; Johnson, Neil P. ; Mol, Ben W J ; Herbison, Peter. / Measuring outcomes in fertility trials : Can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates?. In: Fertility and Sterility. 2010 ; Vol. 94, No. 5. pp. 1647-1651.
@article{8eb8f9f9ff9a4370a5bd103cac6c83ef,
title = "Measuring outcomes in fertility trials: Can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates?",
abstract = "Objective: To assess whether the estimates of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in reproductive medicine differ when either clinical pregnancy or live birth is used as the outcome measure. Design: Metaanalysis. Setting: We analyzed RCTs in reproductive medicine found in systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library that reported on both clinical pregnancy and live birth. Patient(s): Subfertile couples. Intervention(s): For each individual RCT, data on clinical pregnancy and live birth were extracted. Main Outcome Measure(s): We compared the outcome of each study by calculating a kappa-statistic (statistically significant treatment effective or not) and by comparing the odds ratio by calculating the ratio of the odds ratios (ROR). Result(s): We found 67 systematic reviews, of which 42 reported on pregnancy and live birth. These 42 reviews included 654 RCTs, of which 143 (22{\%}) reported both on pregnancy and live birth. The pregnancy loss rates in the treatment and control groups were comparable. Of the 143 RCTs, the conclusion based on pregnancy rate and live birth rate was comparable (kappa value of 0.81; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.94). The odds ratios estimating treatment effect from pregnancy and live birth were also comparable (ROR, 1.01, 95{\%} CI 0.9 to 1.12). Conclusion(s): Only a minority of randomized clinical trials in reproductive medicine report on live birth. Conclusions on the effectiveness of a treatment based on either clinical pregnancy or live birth as endpoints are comparable.",
keywords = "Surrogate outcome, clinical pregnancy, infertility, live birth, subfertility",
author = "Clarke, {Jane F.} and {Van Rumste}, {Minouche M E} and Farquhar, {Cindy M.} and Johnson, {Neil P.} and Mol, {Ben W J} and Peter Herbison",
year = "2010",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.11.018",
language = "English",
volume = "94",
pages = "1647--1651",
journal = "Fertility and Sterility",
issn = "0015-0282",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

Clarke, JF, Van Rumste, MME, Farquhar, CM, Johnson, NP, Mol, BWJ & Herbison, P 2010, 'Measuring outcomes in fertility trials: Can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates?', Fertility and Sterility, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 1647-1651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.11.018

Measuring outcomes in fertility trials : Can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates? / Clarke, Jane F.; Van Rumste, Minouche M E; Farquhar, Cindy M.; Johnson, Neil P.; Mol, Ben W J; Herbison, Peter.

In: Fertility and Sterility, Vol. 94, No. 5, 01.10.2010, p. 1647-1651.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measuring outcomes in fertility trials

T2 - Fertility and Sterility

AU - Clarke, Jane F.

AU - Van Rumste, Minouche M E

AU - Farquhar, Cindy M.

AU - Johnson, Neil P.

AU - Mol, Ben W J

AU - Herbison, Peter

PY - 2010/10/1

Y1 - 2010/10/1

N2 - Objective: To assess whether the estimates of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in reproductive medicine differ when either clinical pregnancy or live birth is used as the outcome measure. Design: Metaanalysis. Setting: We analyzed RCTs in reproductive medicine found in systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library that reported on both clinical pregnancy and live birth. Patient(s): Subfertile couples. Intervention(s): For each individual RCT, data on clinical pregnancy and live birth were extracted. Main Outcome Measure(s): We compared the outcome of each study by calculating a kappa-statistic (statistically significant treatment effective or not) and by comparing the odds ratio by calculating the ratio of the odds ratios (ROR). Result(s): We found 67 systematic reviews, of which 42 reported on pregnancy and live birth. These 42 reviews included 654 RCTs, of which 143 (22%) reported both on pregnancy and live birth. The pregnancy loss rates in the treatment and control groups were comparable. Of the 143 RCTs, the conclusion based on pregnancy rate and live birth rate was comparable (kappa value of 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.94). The odds ratios estimating treatment effect from pregnancy and live birth were also comparable (ROR, 1.01, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.12). Conclusion(s): Only a minority of randomized clinical trials in reproductive medicine report on live birth. Conclusions on the effectiveness of a treatment based on either clinical pregnancy or live birth as endpoints are comparable.

AB - Objective: To assess whether the estimates of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in reproductive medicine differ when either clinical pregnancy or live birth is used as the outcome measure. Design: Metaanalysis. Setting: We analyzed RCTs in reproductive medicine found in systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library that reported on both clinical pregnancy and live birth. Patient(s): Subfertile couples. Intervention(s): For each individual RCT, data on clinical pregnancy and live birth were extracted. Main Outcome Measure(s): We compared the outcome of each study by calculating a kappa-statistic (statistically significant treatment effective or not) and by comparing the odds ratio by calculating the ratio of the odds ratios (ROR). Result(s): We found 67 systematic reviews, of which 42 reported on pregnancy and live birth. These 42 reviews included 654 RCTs, of which 143 (22%) reported both on pregnancy and live birth. The pregnancy loss rates in the treatment and control groups were comparable. Of the 143 RCTs, the conclusion based on pregnancy rate and live birth rate was comparable (kappa value of 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.94). The odds ratios estimating treatment effect from pregnancy and live birth were also comparable (ROR, 1.01, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.12). Conclusion(s): Only a minority of randomized clinical trials in reproductive medicine report on live birth. Conclusions on the effectiveness of a treatment based on either clinical pregnancy or live birth as endpoints are comparable.

KW - Surrogate outcome

KW - clinical pregnancy

KW - infertility

KW - live birth

KW - subfertility

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77957205774&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.11.018

DO - 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.11.018

M3 - Article

VL - 94

SP - 1647

EP - 1651

JO - Fertility and Sterility

JF - Fertility and Sterility

SN - 0015-0282

IS - 5

ER -

Clarke JF, Van Rumste MME, Farquhar CM, Johnson NP, Mol BWJ, Herbison P. Measuring outcomes in fertility trials: Can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates? Fertility and Sterility. 2010 Oct 1;94(5):1647-1651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.11.018