2008 SART stats comparison charts

(11 posts)(7 voices)
  1. fertilitysuccessrates.com

  2. Thanks for posting that! I have a question...how do you go about figuring out how the stats actually stack up when some clinic have so many fewer cycles done than others...it does make a difference, right?

    I mean the best for my age in my state has a 54.5% success rate but only did 580 cycles. Yet my current clinic has a success rate of 39.8% but did 2889 cycles that year. And about the same for the other large clinic I used in the past. Just have always been curious about this...

    Thanks if you can explain this to me!

  3. I think it's hard to compare and I've wound up also listening a lot to anecdotal evidence from women on these boards... like, as an example, I'm really surprised by Columbia's rates for 41-42 yos, and that they're so much better than Cornell's (26.4% live birth rate per transfer, v. 17.8% - why isn't everyone flocking to Columbia?). But there it is...

  4. Thanks for posting that! I have a question...how do you go about figuring out how the stats actually stack up when some clinic have so many fewer cycles done than others...it does make a difference, right?I mean the best for my age in my state has a 54.5% success rate but only did 580 cycles. Yet my current clinic has a success rate of 39.8% but did 2889 cycles that year. And about the same for the other large clinic I used in the past. Just have always been curious about this...Thanks if you can explain this to me!

    The sample size is important - the larger the sample, the less likely it is that some random event skewed the average. More cycles will smooth out the variations in the average success rate.

    As for your question, if you're looking at success rate for your age group, make sure that you're looking at the number of cycles (for that age range) not total number of cycles. I'm not sure if what you quote above is the total number of cycles or not...

    It is also very important to look at stats like these over time - a clinic could have a very good or very bad year for some reason - but the trend over time can tell a very different story. I would want to see consistent trending or trending up over time.

    Finally, just remember that these aren't risk adjusted (so some places could see more difficult patients than others) and don't adjust for differences in protocol (e.g. Sher uses CGH which should weed out patients who would have otherwise transferred an abnormal embryo - which means that the overall success rate looks higher than clinics that don't use CGH. But they aren't getting more women pregnant, they are just better identifying the embryos that won't make it before transfer).

    Does that make sense?

  5. This particular statistic can be misleading when a clinic cancels a lot of patients prior to or shortly after retrieval. However if is able to produce eggs that fertilize in satisfactory quantity, then this statistic can be useful as a comparative tool.

    With respect to Columbia as compared to NYU, Cornell and Sirm think a more telling statistic can be seen in the >42 group and the level of drop-off that the clinics see. its realistic that this number will drop but in Columbia's case the drop-off is massive. This translates to 1 birth out of a 173 cycles. Sirm by comparison only had 35 cycles in the age range but had twice as many births. NYU had a comparable number of cycles to Columbia but had 12 births. I think a couple has to anticipate that if the first cycle doesn't work, then a future age bracket will be much more telling about their prospects.

    Here is the appropriate link for the full report for Columbia:

    https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptC...ClinicPKID=2092

    i think the directly comparable number is "Percentage of cycles resulting in live births" but even this can be manipulated by rejecting patients that don't meet a certain criteria.

  6. This particular statistic can be misleading when a clinic cancels a lot of patients prior to or shortly after retrieval. However if is able to produce eggs that fertilize in satisfactory quantity, then this statistic can be useful as a comparative tool.

    good point - I didn't even notice that they were quoting liver birth rate/transfer

    I agree, that's a potentially misleading stat if looked at alone. I usually look at the live birth/cycle.

    What I really want to know is, who put this site together?

  7. You can also see the cancellation rates on the SART site itself.

  8. nyc,

    in most ways Sirm - NY had good stats in 2008 in the 41-42 range and 42+ plus categories but the 38-40 numbers do seem troubling. it could be that in this category, the negligible number of cancellations could negatively influence the success rates.

  9. thanks , NYC, this is a very informative site.

  10. nyc,in most ways Sirm - NY had good stats in 2008 in the 41-42 range and 42+ plus categories but the 38-40 numbers do seem troubling. it could be that in this category, the negligible number of cancellations could negatively influence the success rates.

    Yes I think probably. SIRM is one of the places that goes to retrieval even with low follicle production if they think that's the best you might be able to do...

    They also did very well in the 35 and under category which is a good way to compare I think.

  11. Again..thanks NYC for posting this thread!

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.