{"id":678,"date":"2022-07-06T15:12:34","date_gmt":"2022-07-06T14:12:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/?p=678"},"modified":"2022-07-06T15:12:34","modified_gmt":"2022-07-06T14:12:34","slug":"our-poster-at-eshre-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/?p=678","title":{"rendered":"Our Poster at ESHRE 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This week, I have been attending the ESHRE conference online. Despite my fervent hope, the long-awaited moment to return to in-person conferences has not transpired and I had to revert to virtual participation. Being able to attend remotely was, unexpectedly, a great opportunity. The conference platform was highly effective, and I could follow all the presentations undisturbed, while sitting comfortably at my desk sipping coffee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With our poster (you can find the abstract here<\/a>) we wanted to shed light on an overlooked issue related to sharing Time-Lapse (TL) videos with patients. As our last published work<\/a> shows, patients often watch the videos of their embryos for the first time at home, without the support of an embryologist to answer any questions that might arise. Even if patients are asked whether they want to receive embryo videos, what these videos show is not very clear to them, and they often do not know what to expect. As patients often associated embryo videos with a potential future baby, watching these videos without an appropriate explanation can cause confusion and potential distress. This potential is even higher when embryo videos are shared just after the transfer and before patients are even able to take a pregnancy test. To improve patients\u2019 experience, we urge professionals to consider further how, where and when these videos are shared with patients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I was very happy to see that our suggestion was welcomed by one of the main experts and author of the two Cochrane reviews on TL, Sarah Armstrong. In her talk, opening the session dedicated to \u201cThe current state of Time-Lapse technology\u201d, she offered an overview of quantitative and qualitative studies available currently on TL. Although the focus of her talk was discussing current evidence of its clinical benefit, she also mentioned our work on patients\u2019 experiences of receiving and watching embryos, opening up for a discussion on whether, when and how clinics should share embryo videos with their patients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this and another presentation<\/a>, Sarah also shared the highlights of the VALUE study<\/a>, an international qualitative study exploring patients\u2019, embryologists\u2019, and clinicians\u2019 decisions to use non-evidence-based treatment \u2018add-ons\u2019. The early results of this study show some significant overlap with the results of our project. For instance, as we discussed in one of our previous publications<\/a>, Sarah noticed how the decisions to use add-ons should be seen in the context of hope for both patients and professionals. Applying the current (missing) evidence is challenging for both professionals (as we have also discussed here<\/a>) and patients (as we discuss in another article currently under review). Finally, she argued that patients don\u2019t want to be denied add-ons but want autonomy in the form of informed consent. I really look forward to reading the detail of the VALUE study results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discussion on the lack of evidence on TL efficiency was not limited to these talks, as Dorit Kieslinger presented the results of the last RCT on TL: The SelecTIMO study<\/a>. This study, including 1,731 women, investigated embryo culture in the Geri+ incubator and the Eeva\u00ae Test algorithm. Their results show that the use of TL, with or without algorithm-based selection, does not improve (cumulative) ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates and therefore its widespread use to increase success rate should be questioned. Despite the results, the discussion after the presentations followed the same logics we showed in our previous research. The audience questioned the evidence (results apply only to the incubator and algorithm examined, others could work better) and the need itself for TL to prove its efficacy in terms of increasing success rates (we use it because it\u2019s a great piece of lab equipment). This discussion goes back to the origin of the problem, which for many does not seem to be if there is evidence to support the ongoing use of these tools, but rather that patients are charged for tools that might not increase their chances of having a baby. As a participant from Denmark commented, TL is very widespread among Danish labs but patients are not charged for its use, and nobody talks about add-ons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is interesting to see how the use of artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming more widespread in the field, without discussion regarding the evidence supporting it. A discussion in the General Assemby highlighted how all the current publications on the topic of AI, do not offer any information on the data, the data points measured, or the content of the algorithms, justified in terms of the defence of intellectual property. It is perhaps surprising that here, unlike in the debate on add-ons, the question of evidence seems to have been overlooked.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This week, I have been attending the ESHRE conference online. Despite my fervent hope, the long-awaited moment to return to in-person conferences has not transpired and I had to revert to virtual participation. Being able to attend remotely was, unexpectedly, a great opportunity. The conference platform was highly effective, and I could follow all the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-678","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorised"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9YI6o-aW","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":157,"url":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/?p=157","url_meta":{"origin":678,"position":0},"title":"ESHRE 2018","date":"25th July 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"At the beginning of this month, I had the pleasure of attending one of the biggest conferences on reproduction, organized by the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). The ESHRE 2018 annual meeting took place in Barcelona, so, needless to say, I was brimming with excitement not only\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Conferences"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/ESHRE.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":247,"url":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/?p=247","url_meta":{"origin":678,"position":1},"title":"Our Year in Review","date":"1st March 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"2018 has been a busy year for the Remaking the Human Body team. We are happy to share that we have, so far, conducted observations at 5 sites and have interviewed more than 50 professionals and patients about their views on time-lapse, IVF technology, and add-ons in the UK. This\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Conferences"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":617,"url":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/?p=617","url_meta":{"origin":678,"position":2},"title":"PET’s annual conference: The current state and regulation of the fertility sector","date":"13th December 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"At the beginning of December, we kept up our tradition of attending the Progress Educational Trust\u2019s (PET) annual conference. The title and topic of this year\u2019s online event was \u2018Reproducing Regulation: Who Regulates Fertility and How?\u2019 With 16 talks across the full day, I have chosen just a handful here\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Conferences"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":649,"url":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/?p=649","url_meta":{"origin":678,"position":3},"title":"Final public engagement event report: Panel on IVF add-ons","date":"1st February 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The final part of our public engagement event series took place on 26 January. This event was organised by the Progress Educational Trust (PET) and chaired by Sarah Norcross, who has been involved in several other of our public engagement activities. PET has a substantial track record of engaging in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Events"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":428,"url":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/?p=428","url_meta":{"origin":678,"position":4},"title":"Workshop with IVF professionals","date":"10th August 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"As part of our public engagement programme, we had the pleasure to host an extremely fascinating event 'Time-lapse Imaging and the Debate on Evidence: A Social Science Perspective', which we organised with the Progress Educational Trust (PET). For this event, we invited professionals involved in various aspects of IVF treatment\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Events"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":700,"url":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/?p=700","url_meta":{"origin":678,"position":5},"title":"Open consultation: When, where and how should fertility patients receive time-lapse videos?","date":"9th March 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A new consultation document addresses how time-lapse videos of embryo development are shared with IVF patients. This is a work-in-progress and we are seeking feedback on the document until July 5th, 2023. You can find the consultation document in the Open Consultation page. To contribute to this consultation, please email\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "News"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/678","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=678"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/678\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":680,"href":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/678\/revisions\/680"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=678"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=678"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/remakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=678"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}