Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on March 11, 2004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/5/1046    most recent
deh215v1
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 ISI Web of Science
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 arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Land, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Evers, J. L.H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Land, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Evers, J. L.H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 19, No. 5, 1046-1048, May 2004
© 2004 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?

Defining outcome in ART: a Gordian knot of safety, efficacy and quality

Jolande A. Land1,2 and Johannes L.H. Evers1

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Research Institute Growth and Development (GROW), Academisch ziekenhuis Maastricht, and Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

2 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academisch ziekenhuis Maastricht, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands. e-mail: jlan{at}sgyn.azm.nl

In the course of the present Debate series, several new outcome measures for assisted reproduction have been proposed to encourage the transfer of fewer embryos, in order to diminish the number of multiple pregnancies. The implementation of these recommendations, however, is hampered by the perception that safety and efficacy are communicating vessels: it is presumed that by decreasing the number of embryos transferred, pregnancy rates will decrease as well. Data from national and international registries, however, do not confirm the assumption of the communicating vessels: pregnancy rates tend to be low in countries in which many embryos are transferred, and the highest pregnancy rates occur where the number of embryos per transfer is low. Only top-level clinics (where treatment efficacy is guaranteed) are able to decrease the number of embryos transferred without compromising their pregnancy rate, and to vouch for safety in this way. Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) can never be mandatory in all patients, but the percentage of eSETs performed by a particular assisted reproduction treatment centre does reflect its quality: the ultimate outcome measure of efficacy ánd safety. Therefore, the eSET rate is the most relevant qualifier of performance in assisted reproduction.

Key words: ART quality/assisted reproduction/outcome measures/single embryo transfer/success rates


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Board Fam MedHome page
J. B. Stanford, T. A. Parnell, and P. C. Boyle
Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice
J Am Board Fam Med, September 1, 2008; 21(5): 375 - 384.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
N. Gleicher and D. Barad
The relative myth of elective single embryo transfer
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2006; 21(6): 1337 - 1344.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
P. N. Barri
Multiple pregnancies: a plea for informed caution
Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2005; 11(1): 1 - 2.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
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]


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.