Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on March 25, 2004
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Human Reproduction, Vol. 19, No. 5, 1052-1054,
May 2004
© 2004 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?
Is there a single ‘parameter of excellence’?
1 The Fertility Clinic, University of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
2 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: apinborg{at}rh.dk
An optimal standard of success reflects all risk and safety aspects of the treatment-related procedures. In this debate, we question whether one single standard of success can cover the complexity of assisted reproduction technology (ART). To emphasize the use of different parameters as standards of success, we calculated data from all IVF and ICSI cycles initiated at the Fertility Clinic, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark between 1999 and 2001. Several already established parameters were computed and, additionally, new suggestions for end-points were calculated. Three parameters were proposed as the best standards of success in ART: (i) number of oocytes per aspiration (8.7); (ii) number of ongoing implantations per embryo transferred (20%); and (iii) number of deliveries per embryo transferred (14%). These parameters cover aspects of all steps in ART, i.e. the stimulation, laboratory and embryo transfer/outcome phase, also termed the pre-in vitro, in vitro and post-in vitro phase. We suggest that the final description of an ART programme should be a balanced choice of the three standards of success proposed herein. If these standards are implemented as national gold standards, the future goal of homogenous reporting of success rates in ART is within reach.
Key words: assisted reproductive technologies/end-point/national reporting/parameter of excellence/standard of success
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. Devroey, B.C.J.M. Fauser, K. Diedrich, and on behalf of the Evian Annual Reproduction (EVAR) Approaches to improve the diagnosis and management of infertility Hum. Reprod. Update, July 1, 2009; 15(4): 391 - 408. [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Manheimer, G. Zhang, L. Udoff, A. Haramati, P. Langenberg, B. M Berman, and L. M Bouter Effects of acupuncture on rates of pregnancy and live birth among women undergoing in vitro fertilisation: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ, March 8, 2008; 336(7643): 545 - 549. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|