Cargando…
Estimation Methods for Infertility Treatment Success: Comparison of Four Methods
Objective: To analyze and compare four methods for estimating the chance of treatment success in infertile couples. Materials and methods: In a retrospective cohort study, information on demographic and clinical features, including age, body mass index (BMI), duration of infertility, semen analysis,...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Tehran University of Medical Sciences
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8536827/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34721609 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v15i3.7136 |
_version_ | 1784588104075575296 |
---|---|
author | Zarinara, Alireza Kamali, Koorosh Akhondi, Mohammad Mahdi |
author_facet | Zarinara, Alireza Kamali, Koorosh Akhondi, Mohammad Mahdi |
author_sort | Zarinara, Alireza |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective: To analyze and compare four methods for estimating the chance of treatment success in infertile couples. Materials and methods: In a retrospective cohort study, information on demographic and clinical features, including age, body mass index (BMI), duration of infertility, semen analysis, previous history of treatment and clinical examination of infertile couples were analyzed. Treatment success (childbearing) was calculated with four methods as live birth ratio, conditional probability and survival analysis (life table and Kaplan-Meyer method) and results are compared. Results: The fertility ratio for the first treatment cycle was 29.72% which decreased to 23.13% by total treatment cycles. The success rate was 75.4%. With conditional probability calculation at the end of the five treatment cycles. With the life table method in a five-year period, the probability for live birth was 78% and by Kaplan-Meyer method 73.1% and the median of treatment time was 562 days. Conclusion: Calculation of infertility treatment success rate by only simple live birth ratio of childbearing couples is associated with underestimation. Using the conditional probability method reduces that underestimation, but it is not considered the censored cases in the treatments. It seems life table (as a proxy of survival analysis) presents the closest estimation to clinical facts with considering the repetition of the treatment cycle and the duration of treatment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8536827 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Tehran University of Medical Sciences |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85368272021-10-29 Estimation Methods for Infertility Treatment Success: Comparison of Four Methods Zarinara, Alireza Kamali, Koorosh Akhondi, Mohammad Mahdi J Family Reprod Health Original Article Objective: To analyze and compare four methods for estimating the chance of treatment success in infertile couples. Materials and methods: In a retrospective cohort study, information on demographic and clinical features, including age, body mass index (BMI), duration of infertility, semen analysis, previous history of treatment and clinical examination of infertile couples were analyzed. Treatment success (childbearing) was calculated with four methods as live birth ratio, conditional probability and survival analysis (life table and Kaplan-Meyer method) and results are compared. Results: The fertility ratio for the first treatment cycle was 29.72% which decreased to 23.13% by total treatment cycles. The success rate was 75.4%. With conditional probability calculation at the end of the five treatment cycles. With the life table method in a five-year period, the probability for live birth was 78% and by Kaplan-Meyer method 73.1% and the median of treatment time was 562 days. Conclusion: Calculation of infertility treatment success rate by only simple live birth ratio of childbearing couples is associated with underestimation. Using the conditional probability method reduces that underestimation, but it is not considered the censored cases in the treatments. It seems life table (as a proxy of survival analysis) presents the closest estimation to clinical facts with considering the repetition of the treatment cycle and the duration of treatment. Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2021-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8536827/ /pubmed/34721609 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v15i3.7136 Text en Copyright © 2021 Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Published by Tehran University of Medical Sciences. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Zarinara, Alireza Kamali, Koorosh Akhondi, Mohammad Mahdi Estimation Methods for Infertility Treatment Success: Comparison of Four Methods |
title | Estimation Methods for Infertility Treatment Success: Comparison of Four Methods |
title_full | Estimation Methods for Infertility Treatment Success: Comparison of Four Methods |
title_fullStr | Estimation Methods for Infertility Treatment Success: Comparison of Four Methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Estimation Methods for Infertility Treatment Success: Comparison of Four Methods |
title_short | Estimation Methods for Infertility Treatment Success: Comparison of Four Methods |
title_sort | estimation methods for infertility treatment success: comparison of four methods |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8536827/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34721609 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v15i3.7136 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zarinaraalireza estimationmethodsforinfertilitytreatmentsuccesscomparisonoffourmethods AT kamalikoorosh estimationmethodsforinfertilitytreatmentsuccesscomparisonoffourmethods AT akhondimohammadmahdi estimationmethodsforinfertilitytreatmentsuccesscomparisonoffourmethods |