BACKGROUND: Models predicting clinical outcome need external validation before they can be applied safely in daily practice. This study aimed to validate two models for the prediction of the chance of treatment-independent pregnancy leading to live birth among subfertile couples. METHODS: The first model uses the woman's age, duration and type of subfertility, percentage of progressive sperm motility and referral status. The second model in addition uses the result of the post-coital test (PCT). For validation, these characteristics were collected prospectively in two University hospitals for 302 couples consulting for subfertility. The models' ability to distinguish between women who became pregnant and women who did not (discrimination) and the agreement between predicted and observed probabilities of treatment-independent pregnancy (calibration) were assessed. RESULTS: The discrimination of both models was slightly lower in the validation sample than in the original sample which provided the model. Calibration was good: the observed and predicted probabilities of treatment-independent pregnancy leading to live birth did not differ for both models. CONCLUSIONS: The chance of pregnancy leading to live birth was reliably estimated in the validation sample by both models. The use of PCT improved the discrimination of the models. These models can be useful in counselling subfertile couples.
BACKGROUND: Models predicting clinical outcome need external validation before they can be applied safely in daily practice. This study aimed to validate two models for the prediction of the chance of treatment-independent pregnancy leading to live birth among subfertile couples. METHODS: The first model uses the woman's age, duration and type of subfertility, percentage of progressive sperm motility and referral status. The second model in addition uses the result of the post-coital test (PCT). For validation, these characteristics were collected prospectively in two University hospitals for 302 couples consulting for subfertility. The models' ability to distinguish between women who became pregnant and women who did not (discrimination) and the agreement between predicted and observed probabilities of treatment-independent pregnancy (calibration) were assessed. RESULTS: The discrimination of both models was slightly lower in the validation sample than in the original sample which provided the model. Calibration was good: the observed and predicted probabilities of treatment-independent pregnancy leading to live birth did not differ for both models. CONCLUSIONS: The chance of pregnancy leading to live birth was reliably estimated in the validation sample by both models. The use of PCT improved the discrimination of the models. These models can be useful in counselling subfertile couples.
Authors: U Punjabi; H Van Mulders; I Goovaerts; K Peeters; E Roelant; D De Neubourg Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Alexandra J Bensdorp; Els Slappendel; Carolien Koks; Jur Oosterhuis; Annemieke Hoek; Peter Hompes; Frank Broekmans; Harold Verhoeve; Jan Peter de Bruin; Janne Meije van Weert; Maaike Traas; Jacques Maas; Nicole Beckers; Sjoerd Repping; Ben W Mol; Fulco van der Veen; Madelon van Wely Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2009-12-18 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Jennifer J Yland; Taiyao Wang; Zahra Zad; Sydney K Willis; Tanran R Wang; Amelia K Wesselink; Tammy Jiang; Elizabeth E Hatch; Lauren A Wise; Ioannis Ch Paschalidis Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Meike A Q Mutsaerts; Henk Groen; Nancy C W ter Bogt; Johanna H T Bolster; Jolande A Land; Wanda J E Bemelmans; Walter K H Kuchenbecker; Peter G A Hompes; Nick S Macklon; Ronald P Stolk; Fulco van der Veen; Jacques W M Maas; Nicole F Klijn; Eugenie M Kaaijk; Gerrit J E Oosterhuis; Peter X J M Bouckaert; Jaap M Schierbeek; Yvonne M van Kasteren; Annemiek W Nap; Frank J Broekmans; Egbert A Brinkhuis; Carolien A M Koks; Jan M Burggraaff; Adrienne S Blankhart; Denise A M Perquin; Marie H Gerards; Robert J A B Mulder; Ed T C M Gondrie; Ben W J Mol; Annemieke Hoek Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2010-06-25 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Rui Wang; Nora A Danhof; Raissa I Tjon-Kon-Fat; Marinus Jc Eijkemans; Patrick Mm Bossuyt; Monique H Mochtar; Fulco van der Veen; Siladitya Bhattacharya; Ben Willem J Mol; Madelon van Wely Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-09-05
Authors: Theodore L Tollner; Scott A Venners; Edward J Hollox; Ashley I Yudin; Xue Liu; Genfu Tang; Houxun Xing; Robert J Kays; Tsang Lau; James W Overstreet; Xiping Xu; Charles L Bevins; Gary N Cherr Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Joukje van Rijswijk; Nienke van Welie; Kim Dreyer; Machiel H A van Hooff; Jan Peter de Bruin; Harold R Verhoeve; Femke Mol; Kimiko A Kleiman-Broeze; Maaike A F Traas; Guido J J M Muijsers; Arentje P Manger; Judith Gianotten; Cornelia H de Koning; Aafke M H Koning; Neriman Bayram; David P van der Ham; Francisca P J M Vrouenraets; Michaela Kalafusova; Bob I G van de Laar; Jeroen Kaijser; Miriam F van Oostwaard; Wouter J Meijer; Frank J M Broekmans; Olivier Valkenburg; Lucy F van der Voet; Jeroen van Disseldorp; Marieke J Lambers; Henrike E Peters; Marit C I Lier; Cornelis B Lambalk; Madelon van Wely; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jaap Stoker; Fulco van der Veen; Ben W J Mol; Velja Mijatovic Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 2.809