Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study

Objectives To examine the extent of multiplicity of data in trial reports and to assess the impact of multiplicity on meta-analysis results. Design Empirical study on a cohort of Cochrane systematic reviews. Data sources All Cochrane systematic reviews published from issue 3 in 2006 to issue 2 in 2007 that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD). We retrieved trial reports contributing to the first SMD result in each review, and downloaded review protocols. We used these SMDs to identify a specific outcome for each meta-analysis from its protocol. Review methods Reviews were eligible if SMD results were based on two to ten randomised trials and if protocols described the outcome. We excluded reviews if they only presented results of subgroup analyses. Based on review protocols and index outcomes, two observers independently extracted the data necessary to calculate SMDs from the original trial reports for any intervention group, time point, or outcome measure compatible with the protocol. From the extracted data, we used Monte Carlo simulations to calculate all possible SMDs for every meta-analysis. Results We identified 19 eligible meta-analyses (including 83 trials). Published review protocols often lacked information about which data to choose. Twenty-four (29%) trials reported data for multiple intervention groups, 30 (36%) reported data for multiple time points, and 29 (35%) reported the index outcome measured on multiple scales. In 18 meta-analyses, we found multiplicity of data in at least one trial report; the median difference between the smallest and largest SMD results within a meta-analysis was 0.40 standard deviation units (range 0.04 to 0.91). Conclusions Multiplicity of data can affect the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To reduce the risk of bias, reviews and meta-analyses should comply with prespecified protocols that clearly identify time points, intervention groups, and scales of interest.

Surplus embryos in Switzerland in 2003: legislation and availability of human embryos for research

Legislation influences the availability of embryos for research. The law in Switzerland, and in some other European countries, is restrictive concerning medically assisted reproduction and stem cell research. Swiss law prohibits the creation of embryos for research purposes. It permits the derivation of human embryonic stem cells for research from surplus embryos but prohibits research with intact surplus embryos and embryo donation to other couples. Swiss law defines all embryos generated during a reproductive cycle and not used for reproduction as surplus embryos. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surplus embryos generated in Switzerland in 2003. A detailed questionnaire was sent to all registered IVF units in Switzerland (n = 22). 11727 embryos were generated during 2003. Of these, 93.5% were transferred into the uterus and 0.4% were cryopreserved. The remaining 6.1% (n = 711) became surplus. Of these, 2.7% were transferred intravaginally and the rest discarded due to poor quality (1.6%), development arrest (1.5%), renunciation by the couple (0.2%) or for other reasons (0.1%). The number of surplus embryos in Switzerland in 2003 was evaluated. Most surplus embryos became so during a therapeutic cycle. The restrictive legal regulation decreases the availability of human embryos for research.

What is to be done with surplus embryos? Attitude formation with ambivalence in German fertility patients

Improved pregnancy rates in IVF have led to increasing numbers of surplus embryos which can potentially be used for purposes like donation to another infertile couple or further research. Individuals report high levels of ambivalence concerning the donation of surplus embryos. This study examined which strategies infertile patients use to deal with this ambivalence when asked to evaluate potential dispositions of surplus embryos created during IVF. Guideline-based interviews with fertility patients were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Following the principle of theoretical sampling, eight interviews were analysed by use of Grounded Theory. Analyses focused on processes of individual attitude formation. Strategies for handling ambivalence during attitude formation were identified: the six strategies comprise cognitive and communicative strategies, and were integrated into a model of attitude formation under ambivalence. As ambivalence is a relevant phenomenon in attitude formation within IVF treatment, assessment of ambivalence is strongly recommended in social science studies investigating ethical problems in patient care. In the context of informed consent, there is a need for individual counselling which draws attention to the conflicting values during attitude formation. Counsellors should be aware of the signs of and the strategies to deal with ambivalence.