Subject:
Medicine And Pharmacology,
Pediatrics, Perinatology And Child Health
Keywords:
topic modelling; latent dirichlet allocation; text mining; assisted reproduction; ART; IVF
Online: 15 April 2019 (12:25:12 CEST)
Study question: What are the current trends of research in Human Assisted Reproduction around the world? Summary answer: USA is the leading country, followed by the UK, China, France and Italy. The largest research area is “laboratory techniques”, although other areas such as “public health”, “quality, ethics and law” and “female factor” are gaining ground worldwide. What is known already: Scientific research, especially in health and medical sciences, aims at addressing specific needs that society (and, especially, patients) perceives as pressing. One of the main challenges for policymakers and research funders alike is therefore to align research priorities to societal needs. We can thus think of research agendas in terms of a demand side (societal needs) and a supply side (research outputs). Research output in Human Assisted Reproduction has expanded in the past years, as indicated by the increasing number of scientific publications in indexed journals in this area. Nevertheless, no map of research related to assisted reproduction has been produced so far, hindering the identification of potential areas of improvement and need. Study design, size, duration: 26,000+ scientific publications (articles, letters, and reviews) on Human Assisted Reproduction produced worldwide between 2005 and 2016 were analyzed. These publications were indexed in PubMed or obtained from reference list of indexed publications included in the analysis.Participants/materials, setting, methods: The corpus of publications was obtained by combining the MeSH terms: “Reproductive techniques”, “Reproductive medicine”, “Reproductive health”, “Fertility”, “Infertility”, and “Germ cells”. Then it was analyzed by means of text mining algorithms (Topic Modeling (TM) based on Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA)), in order to obtain the main topics of interest. Finally, these categories were analyzed across world regions and time. Main results and the role of chance: We identified 44 main topics, which were further grouped in 11 macro categories, form larger to smaller: “laboratory techniques”, “male factor”, “quality, ethics and law”, “female factor”, “public health and infectious diseases”, “basic research and genetics”, “pregnancy complications and risks”, “general infertility and ART”, “psychosocial aspects”, “cancer”, and “research methodology”. The USA was the leading country in number of publications, followed by the UK, China, France and Italy. Interestingly, research contents in high income countries is fairly homogeneous across macro-categories, and it is dominated by “laboratory techniques” in Western and Southern Europe, and by “quality, ethics and law” in North America, Australia and New Zealand. In middle income countries we observe that research is mainly performed on “male factor”, and noticeably less on “female factor”. Finally, research on “public health and infectious diseases” predominates in low-income countries. Regarding temporal evolution of research, “laboratory techniques” is the most abundant topic on a yearly basis, and relatively constant over time. However, since production in most of the other categories is increasing, the relative contribution of this research category is actually decreasing. Publication is especially increasing in “public health and infectious diseases” (in all world regions, but especially in low income countries), “quality, ethics and law” (high income countries), and “female factor” (middle income countries). Limitations, reasons for caution: Three main factors might limit the robustness of our work: the textual corpus analyzed is based on abstract and titles, the reproducibility of the stochastic algorithms applied, which may produce slightly differing results at each run, and the interpretation of the topics obtained. Wider implications of the findings: This study should prove beneficial in the design of research strategies and policies that foster the alignment between supply (assisted reproduction research) and demand (society). Study funding/competing interest(s): PTQ-14-06718 of the Spanish MINECO Torres Quevedo programme (FAM).
Subject:
Medicine And Pharmacology,
Pediatrics, Perinatology And Child Health
Keywords:
Patients involvement; research interests; ART treatments; treatment personalization; psychological effects; healthy habits; fertility protection; infertility prevention; lifestyle; diet
Online: 8 April 2019 (12:46:17 CEST)
STUDY QUESTION: Which are the main research interests among patients of assisted reproductive technologies (ART)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Patients identified as research priorities that deserve further investigation: success rates and risks of ART, side-effects of treatments, resources to cope with infertility, effectiveness of alternative therapies, lifestyle habits to protect fertility, oocyte quality and ovarian reserve, and causes of genetic or hereditary infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The involvement of patients and caregivers in setting research agendas in medicine has gathered significant momentum in the last decade. Patients’ involvement in setting research priorities offers several benefits: improved patient knowledge and awareness of their condition; greater understanding of the medical professionals of the impact of the condition on patients’ quality of life; reduced costs associated with redundant research activities. This is may be also applicable to research in infertility and ART, where patients’ interests have never been explored before. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a cross-sectional study that consists of an anonymous online survey, which was sent up to three times to 2112 patients from 11 fertility centers in 5 countries between January-December 2018. The study design was based on the James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership model, which comprises the identification of patients groups, the exploration of the research agenda, the analysis of collected data and identification of priorities. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall, 2112 patients were contacted, and 945 surveys were answered (RR: 44.7%). Patients were asked to identify research questions relevant to them in the areas of infertility causes and prevention, fertility treatments (medication and ART), and the emotional aspects of infertility. Answers were categorized in topics and ranked by frequency. A long list of the top-30 research topics was extracted from the aggregate results, from which, a short list of the top-10 research topics was created. At the end, 10 research questions related to each of the 10 research topics were constructed, based on the answers given by patients. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Female (845, 89.4%) and male (100, 10.6%) patients were included. The mean age of patients was 37.8 (SD 1.74). Most of the patients did not have children at the time of the survey (523, 59%), while 51 (5.7%) were pregnant. Sixty (6.3%) patients did not start treatment, 579 (61.3%) were performing a treatment with their own gametes and 304 (32.2%) were treated through gamete donation. Patients were mainly interested in the effectiveness of ART -especially per clinical profile-, side effects of drugs, protection of fertility and prevention of infertility –especially through diet and exercise-, and psychological aspects of the infertility journey. The top-10 research questions (and weight) obtained were: 1) What are the side-effects of ART treatments? (41.6%); 2) What are the most effective methods to cope with infertility from the psychological point of view? (37.2%); 3) What effects could diet have on fertility? (25.9%); 4) What are ART success rates per clinical profile? (25.9%); 5) Are there habits and lifestyle factors that could prevent infertility? (20.0%); 6) What are the long-term risks associated to ART? (18.5%); 7) Are alternative therapies such as acupuncture, yoga, and meditation effective to treat/prevent infertility? (18.5%); 8) What is the impact of exercise on fertility? (15.4%); 9) How does oocytes quantity and quality affect fertility? (9.5%); 10) What are the genetic patterns or hereditary conditions causing/related to infertility? (9.5%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although all respondents had attended a fertility center, not all of them were diagnosed as infertile (i.e. single women) and had started treatment at the time of response, while a few were pregnant; their priorities for research might have been influenced by their infertility journey. Also, all participants attended private fertility centers: areas of interest may be different in public settings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FINDINGS: Researchers and clinicians should keep in mind that, in addition to improvement of treatments’ success rates and side-effects, patients greatly value research on causes, prevention and emotional aspects of infertility. As their views might differ from those of medical professionals, patients’ voices should be incorporated in setting infertility research priorities.