Human Reproduction, Vol. 19, No. 1, 3-7,
January 2004
© 2004 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The singleton, term gestation, live birth rate per cycle initiated: the BESST endpoint for assisted reproduction
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada T5H 3V9, 2 Monash IVF, Epworth Hospital, Richmond 3121 and 3 Centre for Women’s Health Research, Monash University Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Medical Centre, Level 5, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: david.healy{at}med.monash.edu.au
Assisted reproduction programmes do not report success consistently. Rates vary with the definition used. Success must reflect delivery of healthy babies, and the burden of treatment to couples. We report the singleton, term gestation, live birth rate of a baby per assisted reproductive technology cycle initiated for a large IVF programme. We defined assisted reproductive technology cycles as those initiated with the intention of oocyte collection. We examined cycles conducted through Monash IVF in 2001. All women with positive pregnancy tests had first trimester ultrasonography. Obstetric outcomes were recorded. All babies had neonatal examinations conducted by paediatricians. A total of 644 positive pregnancy tests were recorded in 2600 cycles; 509 showed fetal heart motion. Of 448 deliveries, 328 were singleton and 120 were multiple. There were 290 singleton deliveries at term gestation. In 2001, a couple had an 11.1% chance of delivering a singleton, term gestation, live baby per assisted reproductive technology cycle begun. We suggest that delivery of a single, term gestation, live baby per cycle initiated is the most relevant standard of success. This statistic was 11.1% at Monash IVF. We encourage programmes to report this BESST (Birth Emphasizing a Successful Singleton at Term) outcome.
Key words: assisted reproduction/live birth rate per cycle/singleton pregnancies/success rates/term gestation
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  I. W.H. van Empel, W. L.D.M. Nelen, E. T. Tepe, E. A.P. van Laarhoven, C. M. Verhaak, and J. A.M. Kremer Weaknesses, strengths and needs in fertility care according to patients Hum. Reprod., October 27, 2009; (2009) dep362v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. I. Abdalla, S. Bhattacharya, and Y. Khalaf Is meaningful reporting of national IVF outcome data possible? Hum. Reprod., October 9, 2009; (2009) dep357v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Devroey, M. Aboulghar, J. Garcia-Velasco, G. Griesinger, P. Humaidan, E. Kolibianakis, W. Ledger, C. Tomas, and B. C.J.M. Fauser Improving the patient's experience of IVF/ICSI: a proposal for an ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRH antagonist co-treatment Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2009; 24(4): 764 - 774. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W.L.D.M. Nelen, R.W. van der Pluijm, R.P.M.G. Hermens, C. Bergh, P. de Sutter, K.G. Nygren, A.M.M. Wetzels, R.P.T.M. Grol, and J.A.M. Kremer The methodological quality of clinical guidelines of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2008; 23(8): 1786 - 1792. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T.E.M. Verhagen, J.C.M. Dumoulin, J.L.H. Evers, and J.A. Land What is the most accurate estimate of pregnancy rates in IVF dropouts? Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2008; 23(8): 1793 - 1799. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. W.H. van Empel, W. L.D.M. Nelen, R. P.M.G. Hermens, and J. A.M. Kremer Coming soon to your clinic: high-quality ART Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2008; 23(6): 1242 - 1245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Castilla, J. Hernandez, Y. Cabello, A. Lafuente, N. Pajuelo, J. Marqueta, B. Coroleu, and (Assisted Reproductive Technology Register of the Defining poor and optimum performance in an IVF programme Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2008; 23(1): 85 - 90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Soullier, J. Bouyer, J.L. Pouly, J. Guibert, and E. de La Rochebrochard Estimating the success of an in vitro fertilization programme using multiple imputation Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2008; 23(1): 187 - 192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.M. Mourad, R.P.M.G. Hermens, W.L.D.M. Nelen, D.D.M. Braat, R.P.T.M. Grol, and J.A.M. Kremer Guideline-based development of quality indicators for subfertility care Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2007; 22(10): 2665 - 2672. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W.L.D.M. Nelen, R.P.M.G. Hermens, S.M. Mourad, E.C. Haagen, R.P.T.M. Grol, and J.A.M. Kremer Monitoring reproductive health in Europe: what are the best indicators of reproductive health? A need for evidence-based quality indicators of reproductive health care Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2007; 22(4): 916 - 918. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E.M. Kolibianakis, J. Collins, B.C. Tarlatzis, P. Devroey, K. Diedrich, and G. Griesinger Among patients treated for IVF with gonadotrophins and GnRH analogues, is the probability of live birth dependent on the type of analogue used? A systematic review and meta-analysis Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2006; 12(6): 651 - 671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B.C. Tarlatzis, B.C. Fauser, E.M. Kolibianakis, K. Diedrich, P. Devroey, and , On Behalf of the Brussels GnRH Antagonist Consen GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF Hum. Reprod. Update, July 1, 2006; 12(4): 333 - 340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. S. Macklon, R. L. Stouffer, L. C. Giudice, and B. C. J. M. Fauser The Science behind 25 Years of Ovarian Stimulation for in Vitro Fertilization Endocr. Rev., April 1, 2006; 27(2): 170 - 207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. De Neubourg, J. Gerris, K. Mangelschots, E. Van Royen, M. Vercruyssen, A. Steylemans, and M. Elseviers The obstetrical and neonatal outcome of babies born after single-embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI compares favourably to spontaneously conceived babies Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2006; 21(4): 1041 - 1046. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.A. Reynolds and L.A. Schieve Trends in embryo transfer practices and multiple gestation for IVF procedures in the USA, 1996-2002 Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2006; 21(3): 694 - 700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.J.C. Eijkemans, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, C. de Klerk, J.D.F. Habbema, and B.C.J.M. Fauser Comparison of different treatment strategies in IVF with cumulative live birth over a given period of time as the primary end-point: methodological considerations on a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2006; 21(2): 344 - 351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. T. Kjellberg, P. Carlsson, and C. Bergh Randomized single versus double embryo transfer: obstetric and paediatric outcome and a cost-effectiveness analysis Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2006; 21(1): 210 - 216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-C. Arce, A. Nyboe Andersen, and J. Collins Resolving methodological and clinical issues in the design of efficacy trials in assisted reproductive technologies: a mini-review Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2005; 20(7): 1757 - 1771. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M.R. Gerris Single embryo transfer and IVF/ICSI outcome: a balanced appraisal Hum. Reprod. Update, March 1, 2005; 11(2): 105 - 121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Barlow The debate on single embryo transfer in IVF. How will today's arguments be viewed from the perspective of 2020? Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2005; 20(1): 1 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Saldeen and P. Sundstrom Would legislation imposing single embryo transfer be a feasible way to reduce the rate of multiple pregnancies after IVF treatment? Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2005; 20(1): 4 - 8. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. N. Barri Multiple pregnancies: a plea for informed caution Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2005; 11(1): 1 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Tiitinen, C. Hyden-Granskog, and M. Gissler What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: The value of cryopreservation on cumulative pregnancy rates per single oocyte retrieval should not be forgotten Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2004; 19(11): 2439 - 2441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Germond, F. Urner, A. Chanson, M.-P. Primi, D. Wirthner, and A. Senn What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: The cumulated singleton/twin delivery rates per oocyte pick-up: the CUSIDERA and CUTWIDERA Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2004; 19(11): 2442 - 2444. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. W. Jones Jr A big first step Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2004; 19(11): 2445 - 2445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. E. Messinis and E. Domali What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: Should BESST really be the primary endpoint for assisted reproduction? Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 1933 - 1935. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Bhattacharya and A. Templeton What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: Redefining success in the context of elective single embryo transfer: evidence, intuition and financial reality Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 1939 - 1942. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, and B.C.J.M. Fauser What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: The next step to improving outcomes of IVF: consider the whole treatment Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 1936 - 1938. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.B. Wennerholm and C. Bergh What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: Singleton live births should also include preterm births Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 1943 - 1945. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Griesinger, K. Dafopoulos, A. Schultze-Mosgau, R. Felberbaum, and K. Diedrich What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: Is BESST (birth emphasizing a successful singleton at term) truly the best? Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2004; 19(6): 1239 - 1241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Pinborg, A. Loft, S. Ziebe, and A. Nyboe Andersen What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: Is there a single 'parameter of excellence'? Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2004; 19(5): 1052 - 1054. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Davies, J. X. Wang, and R. J. Norman What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: Assessing the BESST index for reproduction treatment Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2004; 19(5): 1049 - 1051. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Buckett and S. L. Tan What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: The importance of informed choice Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2004; 19(5): 1043 - 1045. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. P. Dickey, B. M. Sartor, and R. Pyrzak What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: No single outcome measure is satisfactory when evaluating success in assisted reproduction; both twin births and singleton births should be counted as successes Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2004; 19(4): 783 - 787. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Schieve and M. A. Reynolds What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: Challenges in measuring and reporting success rates for assisted reproductive technology treatments: What is optimal? Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2004; 19(4): 778 - 782. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|