BACKGROUND: Prediction models for spontaneous pregnancy may be useful tools to select subfertile couples that have good fertility prospects and should therefore be counselled for expectant management. We assessed the accuracy of a recently published prediction model for spontaneous pregnancy in a large prospective validation study. METHODS: In 38 centres, we studied a consecutive cohort of subfertile couples, referred for an infertility work-up. Patients had a regular menstrual cycle, patent tubes and a total motile sperm count (TMC) >3 x 10(6). After the infertility work-up had been completed, we used a prediction model to calculate the chance of a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy (www.freya.nl/probability.php). The primary end-point was time until the occurrence of a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy within 1 year. The performance of the pregnancy prediction model was assessed with calibration, which is the comparison of predicted and observed ongoing pregnancy rates for groups of patients and discrimination. RESULTS: We included 3021 couples of whom 543 (18%) had a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy, 57 (2%) a non-successful pregnancy, 1316 (44%) started treatment, 825 (27%) neither started treatment nor became pregnant and 280 (9%) were lost to follow-up. Calibration of the prediction model was almost perfect. In the 977 couples (32%) with a calculated probability between 30 and 40%, the observed cumulative pregnancy rate at 12 months was 30%, and in 611 couples (20%) with a probability of >or=40%, this was 46%. The discriminative capacity was similar to the one in which the model was developed (c-statistic 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: As the chance of a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy among subfertile couples can be accurately calculated, this prediction model can be used as an essential tool for clinical decision-making and in counselling patients. The use of the prediction model may help to prevent unnecessary treatment.
BACKGROUND: Prediction models for spontaneous pregnancy may be useful tools to select subfertile couples that have good fertility prospects and should therefore be counselled for expectant management. We assessed the accuracy of a recently published prediction model for spontaneous pregnancy in a large prospective validation study. METHODS: In 38 centres, we studied a consecutive cohort of subfertile couples, referred for an infertility work-up. Patients had a regular menstrual cycle, patent tubes and a total motile sperm count (TMC) >3 x 10(6). After the infertility work-up had been completed, we used a prediction model to calculate the chance of a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy (www.freya.nl/probability.php). The primary end-point was time until the occurrence of a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy within 1 year. The performance of the pregnancy prediction model was assessed with calibration, which is the comparison of predicted and observed ongoing pregnancy rates for groups of patients and discrimination. RESULTS: We included 3021 couples of whom 543 (18%) had a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy, 57 (2%) a non-successful pregnancy, 1316 (44%) started treatment, 825 (27%) neither started treatment nor became pregnant and 280 (9%) were lost to follow-up. Calibration of the prediction model was almost perfect. In the 977 couples (32%) with a calculated probability between 30 and 40%, the observed cumulative pregnancy rate at 12 months was 30%, and in 611 couples (20%) with a probability of >or=40%, this was 46%. The discriminative capacity was similar to the one in which the model was developed (c-statistic 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: As the chance of a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy among subfertile couples can be accurately calculated, this prediction model can be used as an essential tool for clinical decision-making and in counselling patients. The use of the prediction model may help to prevent unnecessary treatment.
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: Maureen A Cooney; Germaine M Buck Louis; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Bridget M McGuiness; Courtney D Lynch Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.822
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: Noortje M van den Boogaard; Fleur A M Kersten; Mariëtte Goddijn; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Fulco van der Veen; Peter G A Hompes; Rosella P M G Hermens; Didi D M Braat; Ben Willem J Mol; Willianne L D M Nelen Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 7.327