Obesity is a well-known risk factor for infertility, and nonpharmacological treatments are recommended as effective and safe, but evidence is still lacking on whether nonpharmacological interventions improve fertility in overweight or obese women. The aim of this study was to systematically assess the current evidence in the literature and to evaluate the impact of nonpharmacological interventions on improving pregnancy-related outcomes in overweight or obese infertile women. Seven databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nonpharmacological interventions for infertile women with overweight or obesity through August 16, 2019 with no language restriction. A meta-analysis was conducted of the primary outcomes. A total of 21 RCTs were selected and systematically reviewed. Compared to the control group, nonpharmacological interventions significantly increased the pregnancy rate (relative risk (RR), 1.37; 95% CI, 1.04–1.81; p = 0.03; I² = 58%; nine RCTs) and the natural conception rate (RR, 2.17, 95% CI, 1.41–3.34; p = 0.0004; I² = 19%, five RCTs). However, they had no significant effect on the live birth rate (RR, 1.36, 95% CI, 0.94–1.95; p=0.10, I² = 65%, eight RCTs) and increased the risk of miscarriage (RR: 1.57, 95% CI, 1.05–2.36; p = 0.03; I² = 0%). Therefore, nonpharmacological interventions could have a positive effect on the pregnancy and natural conception rates, whereas it is unclear whether they improve the live birth rate. Further research is needed to demonstrate the integrated effects of nonpharmacological interventions involving psychological outcomes, as well as pregnancy-related outcomes.

Baek HJ, et al. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2024 Jun;54:e13. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2304180209

Articles from open access and local journals are important resources for research in Korea and the usage trends of these articles are important indicators for the assessment of the current research practice. We analyzed an institutional collection of published papers from 1998 to 2014 authored by researchers from Seoul National University, and their references from papers published between 1998 and 2011. The published papers were collected from Web of Science or Scopus and were analyzed according to the proportion of articles from open access journals. Their cited references from published papers in Web of Science were analyzed according to the proportion of local (South Korean) or open access journals. The proportion of open access papers was relatively stable until 2006 (2.5 ~ 5.2% in Web of Science and 2.7 ~ 4.2% in Scopus), but then increased to 15.9% (Web of Science) or 18.5% (Scopus) in 2014. We analyzed 2,750,485 cited references from 52,295 published papers. We found that the overall proportion of cited articles from local journals was 1.8% and that for open access journals was 3.0%. Citations of open access articles have increased since 2006 to 4.1% in 2011, although the increase in open access article citations was less than for open access publications. The proportion of citations from local journals was even lower. We think that the publishing / citing mismatch is a term to describe this difference, which is an issue at Seoul National University, where the number of published papers at open access or local journals is increasing but the number of citations is not. The cause of this discrepancy is multi-factorial but the governmental / institutional policies, social / cultural issues and authors' citing behaviors will explain the mismatch. However, additional measures are also necessary, such as the development of an institutional citation database and improved search capabilities with respect to local and open access documents.