Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:07:08.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

60 - Understanding Factors That Influence the Assessment of Outcomes in Assisted Reproductive Technologies

from PART III - ASSISTED REPRODUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Botros R. M. B. Rizk
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco
Affiliation:
Rey Juan Carlos University School of Medicine,
Hassan N. Sallam
Affiliation:
University of Alexandria School of Medicine
Antonis Makrigiannakis
Affiliation:
University of Crete
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic intervention to alleviate infertility has steadily evolved since the initial success of in vitro fertilization in the late 1970s. The path to a desired outcome for many remains long, daunting, and uncertain. From the outset of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) applications, clinicians and patients held mutual desire for meaningful expression of its outcomes. The approaches to identifying such data have been diverse, controversial, at times contentious, and, as yet, continuously changing. Professional societies and government regulatory agencies have focused on deciphering parameters and collection of statistics that were substantive to clinicians and yet did not fail or mislead when viewed by the patient consumer. This effort has been in place in the United States and many other countries for a fair length of time. Recent legislation demanding compliance with and contribution to a national database has made reporting mandatory for ART clinics and laboratories within the United States. Debate exists as to whether adherence to a unified system has yielded recognizable improvements in the scientific or public understanding of ART outcomes. The following critical review may lead to the recognition that current methods of ART outcomes reporting and analysis offer no more certainty to clinicians than to the public for whose benefit the government-mandated reporting was imposed.

Despite disclaimers against the utility of direct comparison between practice-reported success rates, inherent and unavoidable human behavior, for both clinician and consumer, has created a very public and competitive environment. Has this improved patient care or impaired it?

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Internet Web address: www.sart.org.
Sharif, K, Afnan, M. The IVF league tables: time for a reality check. Hum Reprod 2003;18(3):483–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katsoff, B, Check, JH, Choe, JK, Wilson, C. A novel method to evaluate pregnancy rates following in vitro fertilization to enable a better understanding of the true efficacy of the procedure. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2005;32(4):213–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Stolwijk, AM, Hamilton, CJ, Hollanders, JM, Bastiaans, , Zielhuis, GA. A more realistic approach to the cumulative pregnancy rate after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1996;11(3):660–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daya, S. Life table (survival) analysis to generate cumulative pregnancy rates in assisted reproduction: are we overestimating our success rates?Hum Reprod 2005;20(5):1135–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilcox, LS, Peterson, HB, Haseltine, FP, Martin, MC. Defining and interpreting pregnancy success rates for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1993;60:18–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ochsenkuhn, R, Strowitzki, T, Gurtner, M, et al. Pregnancy complications, obstetric risks, and neonatal outcome in singleton and twin pregnancies after GIFT and IVF. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2003;268(4):256–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zaib-un-Nisa, S, Ghazal-Aswad, S, Badrinath, P. Outcome of twin pregnancies after assisted reproductive techniques—a comparative study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003;109(1):51–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, P, Lejeune, B, Puissant, F, et al. Early pregnancy loss and obstetrical risk after in-vitro fertilization and embryo replacement. Hum Reprod 1988;3(5):671–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soules, MR. The in vitro fertilization pregnancy rate: let's be honest with one another. Fertil Steril 1985;43:511–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deonandan, R, Campbell, MK, Ostbye, T, Thummon, I. Toward a more meaningful in vitro fertilization success rate. J Assist Reprod Genet 2000;17(9):498–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshal, EC, Spiegelhalter, DJ. Reliability of league tables of in vitro fertilization clinics: retrospective analysis of live birth rates. BMJ 1998;316:1701–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillner, L. Infertility clinics show variation in success. BMJ 1995;311:1041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohammed, MA, Leary, C. Analysing the performance of in vitro fertilization clinics in the United Kingdom. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2006;9(3):145–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, MC. Impact of “non-physician factors” on the “physician factor” of in vitro fertilization success: is it the broth, the cooks, or the statistics?Fertil Steril 1999;71(6):998–1000.Google ScholarPubMed
Deonandan, R, Campbell, MK, Ostbye, T, Tummon, I, Robertson, J. IVF births and pregnancies: an exploration of two methods of assessment using life-table analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001;18(2):73–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karande, V, Morris, R, Chapman, C, Rinehart, J, Gleicher, N. Impact of the “physician factor” on pregnancy rates in a large assisted reproductive technology program: do too many cooks spoil the broth?Fertil Steril 1999;71:1001–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajkhowa, M, McConnell, A, Thomas, GE. Reasons for discontinuation of IVF treatment: a questionnaire study. Hum Reprod 2006;21(2):358–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, J. Cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization. Semin Reprod Med 2001;19(3):279–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hershlag, A, Kaplan, EH, Loy, RA, DeCherney, AH, Lavy, G. Selection bias in in vitro fertilization programs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, RT. Diminished ovarian reserve and access to care. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1489–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legro, RS, Shackleford, DP, Moessner, JM, et al. ART in women 40 and over. Is the cost worth it?J Reprod Med 1997;42:76–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Redshaw, M, Hockley, C, Davidson, LL. A qualitative study of the experience of treatment for infertility among women who successfully became pregnant. Hum Reprod 2007;22(1):295–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, J. An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod Update 2002;8:265–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, JA, Schneyer, TJ. Professional self-regulation and shared-risk programs for in vitro fertilization. J Law Med Ethics 1997;25(4):283–91, 231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Shared-risk or refund programs in assisted reproduction. Vol. 82, Suppl. 1, September 2004:S249–50.
Chambers, GM, Ho, MT, Sullivan, EA. Assisted reproductive technology treatment costs of a live birth: an age-stratified cost-outcome study of treatment in Australia. Med J Aust 2006;184(4):155–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Little, SE, Ratcliffe, J, Caughey. Cost of transferring one through five embryos per in vitro fertilization cycle from various payor perspectives. Obstet Gynecol 2006 108(3 Pt.1):593–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, C. Infertile couples to be given three shots at IVF. BMJ 2004;328:482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Templeton, A, Morris, J, Parslow, W. Factors that affect outcome of in vitro fertilization treatment. Lancet 1996;348:1402–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centers for Disease Control for ART Practice Reporting in 2004. Web address: http://www.cdc.gov/ART/ART2004/sample.htm

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×