How do cumulative live birth rates and cumulative multiple live birth rates over complete courses of assisted reproductive technology treatment per woman compare among registries?

Human Reproduction

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 93-99

  De Neubourg, D ^a   Bogaerts, K ^b,c   Blockeel, C ^d   Coetsier, T ^e   Delvigne, A ^f   Devreker, F ^g   Dubois, M ^h   Gillain, N ^h   Gordts, S ⁱ   Wyns, C ^j  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b KU LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c HASSELT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^d CENTRE FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE   (Belgium)

^e AZ St Lucas   (Belgium)

^f Centre de Procréation Médicalement Assistée   (Belgium)

^g ERASME HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^h UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

ⁱ LEUVEN INSTITUTE FOR FERTILITY AND EMBRYOLOGY   (Belgium)

^j CLINIQUES UNIVERSITAIRES SAINT LUC   (Belgium)

more..

Author keywords

Assisted reproduction technology; Conservative estimate; Cumulative live birth rate; Cumulative multiple live birth rate; Optimal estimate; Registry

Indexed keywords

COHORT ANALYSIS; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DECISION MAKING; EMBRYO; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; LIVE BIRTH; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MODEL; PUBLICATION; REGISTER; REIMBURSEMENT; STUDY DESIGN; VALIDITY; ADULT; BELGIUM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREGNANCY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADULT; BELGIUM; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; LIVE BIRTH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PREGNANCY; REGISTRIES; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED;

EID: 84957570309     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev270     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Adashi EY, Wyden R. Public reporting of clinical outcomes of assisted reproductive technology programs: implications for other medical and surgical procedures. JAMA 2011;306:1135-1136.
2. Arie S. Twin dilemma. BMJ 2014;348:f7603.
3. Barnhart KT. Live birth is the correct outcome for clinical trials evaluating therapy for the infertile couple. Fertil Steril 2014;101:1205-1208.
4. Daya S. Life table (survival) analysis to generate cumulative pregnancy rates in assisted reproduction: are we overestimating our success rates? Hum Reprod 2005;20:1135-1143.
5. De Neubourg D, Bogaerts K, Wyns C, Albert A, Camus M, Candeur M, Degueldre M, Delbaere A, Delvigne A, De Sutter P et al. The history of Belgian assisted reproduction technology cycle registration and control: a case study in reducing the incidence of multiple pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2709-2719.
6. De Neubourg D, Peeraer K, Debrock S, D'Hooghe T. Belgium model of coupling reimbursement of ART costs to restriction in number of embryos transferred. BMJ 2014;348:g1559.
7. Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, Lederman A, Gibbons W, Schattman GL, Lobo RA, Leach RE, Stern JE. Cumulative birth rates with linked assisted reproductive technology cycles. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2483-2491.
8. Malizia BA, Hacker MR, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2009;360:236-243.
9. Malizia BA, Dodge LE, Penzias AS, Hacker MR. The cumulative probability of liveborn multiples after in vitro fertilization: a cohort study of more than 10,000 women. Fertil Steril 2013;99:393-399.
10. National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit. https://npesu.unsw.edu.au (14 August 2015, date last accessed).
11. Olivius K, Friden B, Lundin K, Bergh C. Cumulative probability of live birth after three in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril 2002;77:505-510.
12. Peeraer K, Debrock S, Laenen A, De Loecker P, Spiessens C, De Neubourg D, D'Hooghe TM. The impact of legally restricted embryo transfer and reimbursement policy on cumulative delivery rate after treatment with assisted reproduction technology. Hum Reprod 2014;29:267-275.