Reproductive immunology from the perspective of the clinician

Abstract

Investigators generate new and innovative ideas needed to advance knowledge, while physicians want proven treatments that provide the best care for their patients. Along with advances in reproductive immunology research, there have also been controversies such as immunologic treatments for recurrent pregnancy loss. Research deficiencies that are wasteful and misleading include: over-interpretation and extrapolation from animal studies to the human, inadequate sample sizes, lack of appropriate control groups, use of surrogate markers, associations presented as causation, un-blinded testing and treatments, unreproducible results, and non-standardized outcomes. The purpose of the EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the QUAlity Of health Research) is to improve the quality of research and its publication. These guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, STARD, ARRIVE) have been accepted as mandatory by virtually all major medical journals, and all investigators should prospectively incorporate them into their study designs. From the perspective of a clinician-scientist and an editor, my premise is that the purpose of much basic science research and all clinical research is to improve the medical care of patients. Unproven and costly diagnostic tests and treatments for potential immunologic clinical problems can no longer be justified. The primary and most important outcome that should be reported for all pregnancy-related immunologic studies is the live birth rate of a healthy infant. Today’s clinicians and patients expect unbiased research that leads to evidence-based recommendations for practical and effective treatments.