Driscoll, G. L., & Tyler, J. P. (1999). What is the best strategy for presenting ART results? A controversial comment. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 16(9), 463-467. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020590614263
Driscoll GL, Tyler JP. What is the best strategy for presenting ART results? A controversial comment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1999;16(9):463-467. doi:10.1023/a:1020590614263
Driscoll, G. L., and J. P. Tyler. "What is the best strategy for presenting ART results? A controversial comment." Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, vol. 16, no. 9, 1999, pp. 463-467.
ART success rates can differ widely by how clinics count
Two authors from an Australian IVF clinic argue in a 1999 comment that ART results are hard to compare between clinics, since methods and counting differ. The same 381 women at their clinic had success rates from about 2 out of 10 to nearly 6 out of 10, depending on the count used.
Key Findings
A review of 36 Australian units found 13 types of oocyte collection needles, 6 culture media, 8 types of culture plasticware and 14 types of embryo transfer catheters.
In 1996, 381 women began a first ART treatment cycle at the authors' clinic. Of them, 73.5% reached embryo transfer, and 26.1% of the transfer group had a clinical pregnancy.
By the end of 1997, 57.5% of that 1996 group were pregnant, after more attempts or frozen embryos.
Across United States clinics in 1995, the mean number of embryos placed in one transfer ranged from 1.7 to 7.3 per clinic, even for women under 35.
Interpretation
The paper is a short opinion comment from one IVF clinic, so it offers argument and examples. The comment has no methods section. The authors draw on their own clinic's first-cycle records for one year, plus Australian and national figures they cite. Their analysis of 1996 Australasian national data links higher cancellation rates before egg collection with higher pregnancy rates per collection. They conclude that publishing league tables of clinic success is daunting.
RRM Context
ART success can be counted per woman starting treatment, per woman with oocytes, per woman with embryos, per transfer, or over later attempts. Restorative reproductive medicine studies follow couples over time from a named starting group.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
03wtqwa04 