Life table (survival) analysis to generate cumulative pregnancy rates in assisted reproduction: are we overestimating our success rates? - PubMed
Review
. 2005 May;20(5):1135-43.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh889. Epub 2005 Mar 24.
Affiliations
- PMID: 15790603
- DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh889
Review
Life table (survival) analysis to generate cumulative pregnancy rates in assisted reproduction: are we overestimating our success rates?
Salim Daya. Hum Reprod. 2005 May.
Abstract
The variability in the numbers of treatment cycles couples may undertake with assisted reproductive technology (ART) and the length of time they may have to wait between successive cycles of treatment make the evaluation of treatment efficacy and prognosis complicated. The cumulative pregnancy rate using the life table method of analysis is being used more frequently to estimate the effectiveness of treatment. Although this approach is valid in some areas of infertility research, its use in ART is not appropriate, because the factors necessary for the analysis (particularly the scale for measuring the passage of time and lack of informative censoring) are not satisfied. Consequently, an overestimation of the effect of treatment is produced that may lead to biased decision making. Although there is no easy solution to this problem, several options for summarizing the outcome data are offered: pregnancy rate per cycle, time-limited analysis using proportions, conservative cycle-based cumulative pregnancy rate and real-time-based cumulative pregnancy rate. In this manner, more realistic information can be generated to counsel patients, evaluate the efficacy of treatments, compare rates among centres and guide the formulation of policies for infertility management and resource allocation.
Similar articles
-
Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2002 results from the Canadian ART Register.
Gunby J, Daya S; IVF Directors Group of the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society. Gunby J, et al. Fertil Steril. 2006 Nov;86(5):1356-64. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.04.030. Fertil Steril. 2006. PMID: 17070192
-
Surgery or assisted reproduction? A decision analysis of treatment costs in male infertility.
Meng MV, Greene KL, Turek PJ. Meng MV, et al. J Urol. 2005 Nov;174(5):1926-31; discussion 1931. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000176736.74328.1a. J Urol. 2005. PMID: 16217347
-
Infertility and assisted reproduction in Denmark. Epidemiology and psychosocial consequences.
Schmidt L. Schmidt L. Dan Med Bull. 2006 Nov;53(4):390-417. Dan Med Bull. 2006. PMID: 17150146 Review.
-
Assisted reproductive technologies and multiple gestations.
Wilson EE. Wilson EE. Clin Perinatol. 2005 Jun;32(2):315-28, v. doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2005.03.003. Clin Perinatol. 2005. PMID: 15922785 Review.
Cited by
-
Tarín JJ, Pascual E, García-Pérez MA, Gómez R, Hidalgo-Mora JJ, Cano A. Tarín JJ, et al. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020 Jan;37(1):171-180. doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01642-3. Epub 2019 Dec 3. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020. PMID: 31797243 Free PMC article.
-
IVF success corrected for drop-out: use of inverse probability weighting.
Modest AM, Wise LA, Fox MP, Weuve J, Penzias AS, Hacker MR. Modest AM, et al. Hum Reprod. 2018 Dec 1;33(12):2295-2301. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey309. Hum Reprod. 2018. PMID: 30325421 Free PMC article.
-
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: design or too much design.
Verpoest W. Verpoest W. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2009;1(3):208-22. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2009. PMID: 25489466 Free PMC article.
-
Ratna MB, Bhattacharya S, van Geloven N, McLernon DJ. Ratna MB, et al. Hum Reprod. 2022 Aug 25;37(9):2075-2086. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deac152. Hum Reprod. 2022. PMID: 35866894 Free PMC article.
-
Smith JF, Eisenberg ML, Millstein SG, Nachtigall RD, Sadetsky N, Cedars MI, Katz PP; Infertility Outcomes Program Project Group. Smith JF, et al. Fertil Steril. 2011 Jan;95(1):79-84. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.06.043. Epub 2010 Jul 25. Fertil Steril. 2011. PMID: 20659733 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical