Evidence-Based Medicine for Treatment: An In Vitro Fertilization Trial

ABSTRACT

Evidence-based evaluation of treatment is a pivotal component of an effective and satisfying clinical practice. When the best evidence has been identified, it can be efficiently assessed on three levels: Are the methods valid? Is the effect sufficiently large to be meaningful to patients? Are the patients, intervention(s), and outcomes studied applicable to our own patients? These criteria were applied to a multicenter trial that evaluated whether intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was superior to in vitro fertilization (IVF) among infertile couples with no known male factor who were on a waiting list for IVF. The study was a well-designed randomized controlled trial that effectively concealed the randomization list and took reasonable steps to exclude bias. The results seemed important because the number needed to treat (13) was relatively low and significant, but the primary outcome (implantation rate) was not clinically meaningful. The trial results would have been relevant to most infertile couples with no known male factor if it had been powered to evaluate a difference in a more relevant clinical outcome, such as live birth. Thus, it has not been shown definitively that ICSI is inferior to IVF among couples with no known male factor, and clinical demand for ICSI may continue to rise.

KEYWORDS

Evidence-based medicine - treatment - effectivness - randomized controlled trials - risk difference - number needed to treat

REFERENCES

• 1 Sackett D L, Strauss S E, Richardson W S, Rosenberg W, Haynes R B. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone 2000
• 2 Guyatt G, Sackett D L, Cook D J. Users' guide to the medical literature II: how to use an article about therapy or prevention. A: Are the results of the study valid?.  JAMA . 1993;  270 2598-2601
• 3 Guyatt G H, Sackett D L, Cook D J. Users' guide to the medical literature II: how to use an article about therapy or prevention. B: What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients?.  JAMA . 1994;  271 59-63
• 4 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1998 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry.  Fertil Steril . 2002;  77 18-31
• 5 Aboulghar M A, Mansour R T, Serour G I, Amin Y M, Kamal A. Prospective controlled randomized study of in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the treatment of tubal factor infertility with normal semen parameters.  Fertil Steril . 1996;  66 753-756
• 6 Moreno C, Ruiz A, Simon C, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a routine indication in low responder patients.  Hum Reprod . 1998;  13 2126-2129
• 7 Bukulmez O, Yarali H, Yucel A, Sari T, Gurgan T. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus in virto fertilisation for patients with a tubal factor as their sole cause of infertility: a prospective randomised trial.  Fertil Steril . 2000;  73 38-42
• 8 Bhattacharya S, Hamilton M PR, Shaaban M M. et al . Conventional in-vitro fertilisation versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection for the treatment of non-male-factor infertility: a randomised controlled trial.  Lancet . 2001;  357 2075-2079
• 9 Schulz K F, Chalmers I, Hayes R J, Altman D G. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.  JAMA . 1995;  273 408-412
• 10 Dupont W D, Plummer W D. Power and sample size calculations: a review and computer program.  Control Clin Trials . 1990;  11 116-128