Comparison of IVF cycles reported in a voluntary ART registry with a mandatory registry in Spain

Luceño, F.; Castilla, J.A.; Gómez-Palomares, J.L.; Cabello, Yolanda; Hernández, Juana; Marqueta, J.; Herrero, Julio; Vidal, Ester; Fernández-Shaw, S.; Coroleu, Buenaventura

doi:10.1093/humrep/deq267

Cited by 17 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, ART practices in Spain differ from that of the US and are unique in that there are both mandatory and voluntary ART registries. In 2010, Luceno et al compared the reporting rates in both the mandatory and voluntary registries in Spain and noted that the voluntary data were valid in fresh, nondonor cycles [28]. Of the respondents in our study, 114 of 277 (41.2%) did not report their success rates on clinical websites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Public reporting of IVF outcomes influences medical decision-making and physician training

Gunderson

Jungheim

Kallen

et al. 2020

Fertil Res and Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Since 1992 ART clinics have been required to report outcome data. Our objective was to assess practitioners' opinions of the impact of public reporting of assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes on treatment strategies, medical decision-making, and fellow training. Methods: Survey study performed in an academic medical center. Members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and the Society of Reproductive Surgery were recruited to participate in an online survey in April 2012.: Categorical survey responses were expressed as percentages. Written responses were categorized according to common themes regarding effects of reporting on participants' medical management of patients. The study was primarily qualitative and was not powered to make statistical conclusions. Results: Of 1019 surveys sent, 323 participants (31.7%) responded from around the United States, and 275 provided complete data. Nearly all (273 of 282; 96.8%) participants responded that public reporting sometimes or always affected other providers' practices, and 264 of 281 (93.9%) responded that other practitioners were motivated to deny care to poor-prognosis patients to improve reported success rates. However, only 121 of 282 (42.9%) indicated that public reporting influenced their own medical management. The majority of respondents agreed that public reporting may hinder adoption of single embryo transfer practices (194 of 299; 64.9%) and contribute to the persistent rate of twinning in in vitro fertilization (187 of 279; 67%). A small majority (153 of 279; 54.8%) felt that public reporting did not benefit fellow training, and 58 (61.7%) of the 94 participants who trained fellows believed that having fellows perform embryo transfers reduced pregnancy rates. A small majority (163 of 277; 58.8%) of respondents reported their ART success rates on clinical websites. However, the majority (200 of 275; 72.7%) of respondents compared their success rates with those of other clinics. Finally, most respondents (211 of 277; 76%) believed that most centers that advertised their success rates did so in ways that were misleading to patients. Conclusions: Public reporting of ART clinical outcomes is intended to drive improvement, promote trust between patients and providers, and inform consumers and payers. However, providers reported that they modified their practices, felt others denied care to poor-prognosis patients, and limited participation of trainees in procedures in response to public reporting of ART outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Public reporting of IVF outcomes influences medical decision-making and physician training

Gunderson

Jungheim

Kallen

et al. 2020

Fertil Res and Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, if we take into consideration the origin of couples or women who make use of donor sperm, the limit could be higher still. In Spain, a large number of cycles are performed for couples from other countries [12,13], and therefore, there is less probability of unions between a donor's descendants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maximum number of children per sperm donor based on false paternity rate

Sánchez-Castelló

Gonzálvo

Clavero

et al. 2016

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study is to estimate the weight of each relevant factor in such unions of inadvertent consanguinity and to determine a Breasonable^limit for the number of children per donor, matching the probability of inadvertent consanguinity arising from the use of sperm donor in assisted reproduction with that of such a union arising from false paternity. Methods In this study, we applied to Spanish data a mathematical model of consanguineous unions, taking into account the following factors: maximum number of live births/donor, fertility rate, average number of births per donor in a pregnancy, donor success rate, matings per phenotype, number of newborns/year, and number of donors needed in the population/year and births by false paternity. Results In Spain, the number of inadvertent unions between descendants of the same donor in Spain has been estimated at 0.4/year (one every two and a half years), although this frequency decreases as the reference population increases. On the other hand, the frequency of unions between family members due to false paternity has been estimated at 6.1/year. Thus, only 6% of such unions are due to the use of donor sperm. Conclusion A total of 25 children per sperm donor are needed to align the probability of inadvertant consanguinity arising from the use of assisted reproduction with that due to false paternity. Therefore, we consider this number to be the maximum Breasonable^number of children born per donor in Spain.

show abstract

“…Indeed, transparency and accuracy are essential keys to proper surveillance and efficient improvement. Such criteria are not always easy to implement, as shown recently in the observed discrepancy between the national assisted reproduction Spanish register and its Catalan equivalent, with particular disparity for oocyte donation cycles, although there was a good match for IVF cycles (Lucen et al, 2011) Other challenges are also looming, as oocyte banking is becoming much more efficient thanks to vitrification (Cobo et al, 2008). This means that eggs have started to cross borders as well, perhaps enabling some patients to stay at home in their preferred environment, but making it more difficult to check the conditions of donation for all concerned.…”

Section: The Implementation Of the Eshre Good Practice Guide For Cbrcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing a good practice guide for CBRC: perspectives from the ESHRE Cross-Border Reproductive Care Taskforce

Shenfield

2011

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article sets out views about cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) from the point of view of a professional clinicians' group. After publishing the first international European dataset measuring the phenomenon of CBRC in six European countries in June 2010, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Taskforce on CBRC set out to write a good practice guide, which aims at advising clinicians and professionals dealing with patients interested in seeking fertility treatment outside their country of residence. The background, outline and possible means of implementation of this guide are discussed here. The aims of the guide are to ensure quality of care and safety for all concerned, from patients to their future offspring, via gamete donors and surrogates if involved. Patient centredness is also an important aspect, as well as fair treatment of all parties, based on appropriate and intelligible information.

show abstract

Comparison of IVF cycles reported in a voluntary ART registry with a mandatory registry in Spain

Abstract: Data from the voluntary ART register for IVF cycles are valid, but those for donor egg cycles are not. Further study is necessary to determine the reasons for this difference.

Cited by 17 publications

References 16 publications

Public reporting of IVF outcomes influences medical decision-making and physician training

Public reporting of IVF outcomes influences medical decision-making and physician training

Maximum number of children per sperm donor based on false paternity rate

Implementing a good practice guide for CBRC: perspectives from the ESHRE Cross-Border Reproductive Care Taskforce

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About