↓ Skip to main content

Hysteroscopy in recurrent in-vitro fertilisation failure (TROPHY): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, April 2016
Altmetric Badge
26

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
21 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hysteroscopy in recurrent in-vitro fertilisation failure (TROPHY): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial
Published in
The Lancet, April 2016
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00258-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tarek El-Toukhy, Rudi Campo, Yacoub Khalaf, Carla Tabanelli, Luca Gianaroli, Sylvie S Gordts, Stephan Gordts, Greet Mestdagh, Tonko Mardesic, Jan Voboril, Gian L Marchino, Chiara Benedetto, Talha Al-Shawaf, Luca Sabatini, Paul T Seed, Marco Gergolet, Grigoris Grimbizis, Hoda Harb, Arri Coomarasamy

Abstract

The success rate of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) remains low and many women undergo multiple treatment cycles. A previous meta-analysis suggested hysteroscopy could improve outcomes in women who have had recurrent implantation failure; however, studies were of poor quality and a definitive randomised trial was needed. In the TROPHY trial we aimed to assess whether hysteroscopy improves the livebirth rate following IVF treatment in women with recurrent failure of implantation. We did a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in eight hospitals in the UK, Belgium, Italy, and the Czech Republic. We recruited women younger than 38 years who had normal ultrasound of the uterine cavity and history of two to four unsuccessful IVF cycles. We used an independent web-based trial management system to randomly assign (1:1) women to receive outpatient hysteroscopy (hysteroscopy group) or no hysteroscopy (control group) in the month before starting a treatment cycle of IVF (with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection). A computer-based algorithm minimised for key prognostic variables: age, body-mass index, basal follicle-stimulating hormone concentration, and the number of previous failed IVF cycles. The order of group assignment was masked to the researchers at the time of recruitment and randomisation. Embryologists involved in the embryo transfer were masked to group allocation, but physicians doing the procedure knew of group assignment and had hysteroscopy findings accessible. Participants were not masked to their group assignment. The primary outcome was the livebirth rate (proportion of women who had a live baby beyond 24 weeks of gestation) in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN35859078. Between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2013, we randomly assigned 350 women to the hysteroscopy group and 352 women to the control group. 102 (29%) of women in the hysteroscopy group had a livebirth after IVF compared with 102 (29%) women in the control group (risk ratio 1·0, 95% CI 0·79-1·25; p=0·96). No hysteroscopy-related adverse events were reported. Outpatient hysteroscopy before IVF in women with a normal ultrasound of the uterine cavity and a history of unsuccessful IVF treatment cycles does not improve the livebirth rate. Further research into the effectiveness of surgical correction of specific uterine cavity abnormalities before IVF is warranted. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 189 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 14%
Other 18 10%
Researcher 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Other 39 21%
Unknown 54 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 7%
Psychology 8 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 60 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,459,783
of 25,500,206 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#10,205
of 42,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,055
of 312,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#176
of 447 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,500,206 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,805 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 447 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.