Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on October 9, 2009
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/dep357
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Abdalla, H. I.
Right arrow Articles by Khalaf, Y.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Abdalla, H. I.
Right arrow Articles by Khalaf, Y.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Opinion

Is meaningful reporting of national IVF outcome data possible?

Hossam I. Abdalla1,4, Siladitya Bhattacharya2 and Yacoub Khalaf3

1 Lister Fertility Clinic, The Lister Hospital, Chelsea Bridge Road, London SW1W 8RH, UK 2 Division of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK 3 Assisted Conception Unit, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital Foundation, Trust 11th Floor, Tower Wing Guy's Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK

4 Correspondence address. E-mail: sam{at}easynet.co.uk

The traditional use of live birth per IVF cycle started as the sole indicator of success can be potentially misleading. Different policies regarding reporting IVF cycles started, variations in the number of embryos transferred and associated multiple births have a profound effect on success, such that results from clinics or countries with similar expertise may appear significantly different. To account for these differences, we recommend the use of live birth per embryo—calculated as the number live birth events per 100 embryos transferred—as an outcome measure. This method of reporting can correct for under reported cycles started, adjust for differences in embryo transfer policies and provides an objective and reproducible international benchmark. Combining live birth outcomes from fresh and frozen cycles in the same reporting period per oocyte collection is also recommended. These data should be published as a range related to the national average without a mean or central point. Furthermore, for proper interpretation of results, it would be helpful if the policies regarding patient inclusion and cycle cancellation at all clinics are published.

Key words: IVF/outcome measure/national data/live birth/embryo

Submitted on June 3, 2009; resubmitted on July 31, 2009; accepted on August 5, 2009.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.