title: Statistical flaws in design and analysis of fertility treatment -studies on cryopreservation raise doubts on the conclusions.
abstract: Decisions about pharmacotherapy are being taken by medical doctors and authorities based on comparative studies on the use of medications. In studies on fertility treatments in particular, the methodological quality is of utmost -importance in the application of evidence-based medicine and systematic reviews. Nevertheless, flaws and omissions appear quite regularly in these types of studies. Current study aims to present an overview of some of the typical statistical flaws, illustrated by a number of example studies which have been published in peer reviewed journals. Based on an investigation of eleven studies at random selected on fertility treatments with cryopreservation, it appeared that the methodological quality of these studies often did not fulfil the -required statistical criteria. The following statistical flaws were identified: flaws in study design, patient selection, and units of analysis or in the definition of the primary endpoints. Other errors could be found in p-value and power calculations or in critical p-value definitions. Proper -interpretation of the results and/or use of these study results in a meta analysis should therefore be conducted with care.
authors.affiliation: PSCT B.V., Probabilistic Solutions Consult & Training, Nootdorpse Landingslaan 292, 2496TB Den Haag, the Netherlands.
authors.forename: P H A J M
authors.initials: PH
authors.lastname: van Gelder
authors.affiliation: The Geertgen Foundation, Fertility Treatment Centre, Elsendorp, the Netherlands.
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Nijs
keywords: Statistics in infertility studies; cryopreservation; methodological study requirements; subfertility
references.citation: Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006 Dec;20(6):779-97
references.pmid: 17118261
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2002 Mar;77(3):472-5
references.pmid: 11872197
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2009 Feb;91(2):395-400
references.pmid: 18295209
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2004 Apr;19(4):874-9
references.pmid: 15016780
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2003 May;18(5):1005-9
references.pmid: 12721177
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2006 Mar;85(3):603-9
references.pmid: 16500326
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2006 Sep;21(9):2368-74
references.pmid: 16684837
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2001 Nov;16(11):2316-9
references.pmid: 11679511
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2003 Dec;18(12):2495-6; discussion 2496-7, 2497-8
references.pmid: 14645159
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2005 Jul;20(7):1757-71
references.pmid: 15890741
references.citation: Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2000 Nov 27;169(1-2):73-7
references.pmid: 11155958
references.citation: Lancet. 1996 Nov 23;348(9039):1402-6
references.pmid: 8937279
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 1995 Oct;10(10):2534-40
references.pmid: 8567765
references.citation: Chin J Integr Med. 2006 Dec;12(4):244-9
references.pmid: 17361518
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2007 Sep;22(9):2404-13
references.pmid: 17640944
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2003 May;18(5):899-901
references.pmid: 12721158
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2003 May;18(5):1000-4
references.pmid: 12721176
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Aug;52(8):717-23
references.pmid: 10465315