OBJECTIVE: To determine whether in one program with unified treatment protocols, patients can expect varying treatment outcomes with different physicians. DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis. SETTING: University-affiliated infertility center with 14 physicians. PATIENT(S): One thousand eight hundred fifty IVF cycles performed consecutively between August 1995 and June 1997. INTERVENTION(S): The pregnancy rate and implantation rate per ET were evaluated for individual physicians between August 1995 and June 1996 (phase I). Physicians with lower success rates underwent strict supervision from July 1996 to June 1997 (phase II). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Variations in success rates between physicians. RESULT(S): The pregnancy rate varied among the physicians from 13.2%-37.4%, and the implantation rate varied from 4.4%-14%. Some physicians' outcomes improved between phase I and phase II of the study, whereas others' did not. The pregnancy and implantation rates varied significantly for some physicians, depending on whether they were responsible for the choice of stimulation protocol, supervision of cycle monitoring, or ET in their own or other physicians' patients. CONCLUSION(S): Outcomes of IVF vary depending on the treating physician. Lower than expected pregnancy and implantation rates usually are not caused by poor ET techniques alone, but appear to be disproportionately the consequences of poor cycle stimulation.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether in one program with unified treatment protocols, patients can expect varying treatment outcomes with different physicians. DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis. SETTING: University-affiliated infertility center with 14 physicians. PATIENT(S): One thousand eight hundred fifty IVF cycles performed consecutively between August 1995 and June 1997. INTERVENTION(S): The pregnancy rate and implantation rate per ET were evaluated for individual physicians between August 1995 and June 1996 (phase I). Physicians with lower success rates underwent strict supervision from July 1996 to June 1997 (phase II). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Variations in success rates between physicians. RESULT(S): The pregnancy rate varied among the physicians from 13.2%-37.4%, and the implantation rate varied from 4.4%-14%. Some physicians' outcomes improved between phase I and phase II of the study, whereas others' did not. The pregnancy and implantation rates varied significantly for some physicians, depending on whether they were responsible for the choice of stimulation protocol, supervision of cycle monitoring, or ET in their own or other physicians' patients. CONCLUSION(S): Outcomes of IVF vary depending on the treating physician. Lower than expected pregnancy and implantation rates usually are not caused by poor ET techniques alone, but appear to be disproportionately the consequences of poor cycle stimulation.
Authors: Sebastian Mirkin; Estella L Jones; Jacob F Mayer; Laurel Stadtmauer; William E Gibbons; Sergio Oehninger Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Ryan J Heitmann; Micah J Hill; John M Csokmay; Justin Pilgrim; Alan H DeCherney; Shad Deering Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2017-03-11 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Adrienne B Neithardt; James H Segars; Sasha Hennessy; Aidita N James; Jeffrey L McKeeby Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 7.329