Research Methods
Our methods follow established guidelines in the conduct of systematic reviews and evidence translation. This includes all steps of the process, from identifying relevant studies, to combining their results and translating this into the evidence categories we use.
Using established guidelines, our Expert Researchers developed a step-by-step scientific methodology tailored to the Evidence Based IVF website.
Briefly, there are five steps
-
Screening
Search through thousands of studies to find the ones that are relevant
-
Data collection
Gather important information from these studies, including details about the participants and the results
-
Synthesis
Combine the results from different studies to get a single overall outcome (a method known as meta-analysis)
-
Critical appraisal
Assess the quality of studies and the overall strength of all the evidence gathered
-
Translation
Translate these findings into the Evidence Based IVF evidence categories
All the information we publish goes through multiple levels of editing, including review by IVF specialists, embryologists and patients, to ensure that the information presented is accurate, evidence-based, and unbiased.
Randomised controlled trials
We only include data from randomised controlled trials because these studies provide the most reliable evidence about whether an IVF option is effective and safe.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard in research because they provide the most reliable evidence about whether a treatment or intervention works. In a randomised trial, participants are randomly assigned to either the treatment group or the control group (like flipping a coin). This random assignment helps to ensure that any differences between the groups are due to the treatment itself and not other factors. By comparing the treatment group to the control group, researchers can determine whether the treatment has a real effect.
Watch this video for more information about the rationale for randomised controlled trials and how they work.
Research integrity in IVF studies
There is growing concern that some IVF studies may involve research misconduct, such as falsifying or altering data. While journals can retract studies with serious integrity issues after thorough review, this process is often very lengthy. As a result, many studies with potential integrity problems remain published and unretracted.
To help identify potential integrity concerns in the studies we evaluate, we use a tool called the Trustworthiness in Randomised Controlled Trials (TRACT) checklist.
Trial registration
One key factor we look at is whether the trial was registered on an official clinical trial registry before recruiting participants. Trial registration is important for several reasons:
- It allows researchers to see what studies are ongoing and may be published in the future.
- It helps identify "publication bias," where studies with less positive or less exciting results are less likely to be published.
- It lets us compare the methods and outcomes planned at the start of the study with what was actually reported when the results were published.
Since trial registration became standard practice in 2005, we expect all trials starting after 2010 to have been registered before recruitment began. If a study doesn’t meet this requirement, the study results from this trial will not be used unless there is other convincing evidence, such as an ethics approval letter, or a reasonable explanation from the researchers to confirm the study was conducted as claimed.
Conference abstracts
We also only include studies if they have been reported as full-length publications in peer-reviewed journals. Sometimes studies are presented at scientific conferences and information about the study is available from the conference organisers in a short description known as a ‘conference abstract’. If a study is only available as a conference abstract, it is often not possible to tell if the study was truly randomised or if the results have been accurately reported. Therefore, we only include conference abstracts if we can obtain further information about the trial from a prospective trial registration or correspondence with the study authors.
Evidence categories used on our website
The table below explains the different evidence categories you might see on the website (e.g. 'no effect'), including what they mean and when they are used.
Symbol | Applied when: | |
|---|---|---|
Increased chance | Increased chance | Studies show an increased chance of the outcome. A green arrow indicates the increase is a good thing (e.g. increase live birth rate). A red arrow indicates the increase is a bad thing (e.g. increase miscarriage rate). |
Possible increased chance | Possible increased chance | The studies suggest a possible increased chance of outcome. This category is used when either
In these cases, it is a little uncertain, and although the evidence suggests the optional extra increases the chance of the outcome, it is also possible that it decreases the chance of outcome, or has no effect. A green arrow indicates the increase is a good thing (e.g. increase live birth rate). A red arrow indicates the increase is a bad thing (e.g. increase miscarriage rate). |
No effect | Studies show the optional extra probably makes no difference to the chance of outcome e.g. The chance of live birth appears the same or similar among people who did and did not have the optional extra. | |
Possible decreased chance | Possible decreased chance | The studies suggest a possible decreased chance of outcome. This category is used when either
In these cases, it is a little uncertain, and although the evidence suggests the optional extra decreases the chance of the outcome, it is also possible that it increases the chance of outcome, or has no effect. A green arrow indicates the decrease is a good thing (e.g. decreased miscarriage rate). A red arrow indicates the decrease is a bad thing (e.g. decreased live birth rate). |
Decreased chance | Decreased chance | Studies show a decreased chance of outcome. A green arrow indicates the decrease is a good thing (e.g. decreased miscarriage rate). A red arrow indicates the decrease is a bad thing (e.g. decreased live birth rate). |
Unclear | Conflicting results Results of different studies varied substantially (e.g. some report an increase, some report a decrease). In some cases when the results are very different, it is not appropriate to combine the studies together to get an overall result. | |
No studies exist There is no evidence available as no studies exist that report on this outcome. | ||
Not enough studies The number of individual trials is small, or the number of people participating in the trials are low, and therefore the results are imprecise. The margin of error associated with the combined results is wide. | ||
Very low-quality The existing evidence is of very low quality and is therefore unreliable. | ||
Quality of evidence in IVF
We use the GRADE approach to determine the quality or certainty of evidence
This tell us ‘How good is the evidence?’ or ‘How much do we trust this evidence?’ on a 4-point scale (very low, low, moderate, high).
It is sort like asking “Are we sure?”
We consider five different questions when assessing quality of evidence using GRADE
- What are the limitations of the studies i.e. what is the risk of bias?
- Are the results of different studies consistent?
- How directly does the evidence apply?
- Are the results precise?
- Have we found all the research that exists?
Cost of IVF optional extras
We provide an estimated range of the cost of each optional extra. This is determined by a review of IVF clinic websites and input from our Collaborators. To provide a quick overview of the approximate cost of optional extras, we created the following general guide in partnership with our patient Collaborators.
Low cost | Less than $200 |
Medium cost | $200-700 |
High cost | More than $700 |
Cost information is indicative only and varies from clinic to clinic and depending on different circumstances.
Updates to the evidence
We update the information for each optional extra every 6-12 months.
Evidence changed | This optional extra was updated in the last 6 months, and the evidence changed for at least one outcome |
More trials added | This optional extra was updated in the last 6 months and new trials were added (but the overall evidence has not changed) |
New | This optional extra has been added to the website in the last 6 months |
Explore more information about Evidence-based IVF
-
IVF optional extras
Information about IVF treatment options and add-ons, and the evidence for their effectiveness and safety
-
Join our IVF research panel
Join the (In)Fertility Research Panel at the University of Melbourne, and contribute to important infertility and IVF research.
-
About us
Information about Evidence-based IVF, including where our funding comes from and who we are.
-
Frequently asked questions
Answers to common questions about IVF, IVF treatment options, and how evidence is assessed on the Evidence-based IVF website.
Disclaimer: Evidence-based IVF is a web-based resource that provides evidence-based information based on research and other data. Content on the Evidence-based IVF webpage is provided for information purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for medical advice. You should consult with qualified and appropriately experienced medical professionals when considering the information from this webpage. Scientific studies and clinical trial results are continually being published. While considerable care has been taken, The University of Melbourne cannot, and does not make any representations and gives no warranties that the information associated with the Evidence-based IVF webpage is in every respect correct, current, complete, reliable, or suitable for any purpose and use is entirely at your own risk.
Stay up-to-date with the latest evidence
We’ll share any updates to our evidence and new IVF optional extras added