Estimation Methods for Infertility Treatment Success: Comparison of Four Methods.

Journal of Family and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.18502/jfrh.v15i3.7136

Alireza Zarinara, Koorosh Kamali, Mohammad Mahdi Akhondi

{"title":"Estimation Methods for Infertility Treatment Success: Comparison of Four Methods.","authors":"Alireza Zarinara, Koorosh Kamali, Mohammad Mahdi Akhondi","doi":"10.18502/jfrh.v15i3.7136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":15845,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family and Reproductive Health","volume":"15 3","pages":"179-185"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b9/5b/JFRH-15-179.PMC8536827.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v15i3.7136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

不孕不育治疗成功的评估方法:四种方法的比较。

目的:分析比较四种估计不孕夫妇治疗成功率的方法。材料与方法:采用回顾性队列研究，对不孕夫妇的年龄、体重指数(BMI)、不孕持续时间、精液分析、既往治疗史及临床检查等人口学及临床特征进行分析。采用活产率、条件概率和生存分析(生命表法和Kaplan-Meyer法)四种方法计算治疗成功率(生育)，并对结果进行比较。结果:第一个治疗周期的受精率为29.72%，随着总治疗周期的增加，受精率下降到23.13%。成功率为75.4%。在五个处理周期结束时进行条件概率计算。采用生命表法5年生存率为78%，Kaplan-Meyer法为73.1%，治疗时间中位数为562天。结论:单纯以育龄夫妇活产率计算不孕症治疗成功率存在低估的现象。使用条件概率方法可以减少这种低估，但在处理中没有考虑到审查的情况。考虑到治疗周期的重复和治疗的持续时间，生命表(作为生存分析的代理)似乎是最接近临床事实的估计。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Family and Reproductive Health

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

5 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Family & Reproductive Health (JFRH) is the quarterly official journal of Vali–e–Asr Reproductive Health Research Center. This journal features fulllength, peerreviewed papers reporting original research, clinical case histories, review articles, as well as opinions and debates on topical issues. Papers published cover the scientific and medical aspects of reproductive physiology and pathology including genetics, endocrinology, andrology, embryology, gynecologic urology, fetomaternal medicine, oncology, infectious disease, public health, nutrition, surgery, menopause, family planning, infertility, psychiatry–psychology, demographic modeling, perinatalogy–neonatolgy ethics and social issues, and pharmacotherapy. A high scientific and editorial standard is maintained throughout the journal along with a regular rate of publication. All published articles will become the property of the JFRH. The editor and publisher accept no responsibility for the statements expressed by the authors here in. Also they do not guarantee, warrant or endorse any product or service advertised in the journal.