Micah J Hill1, Mae Wu Healy2, Kevin S Richter3, Eric Widra3, Eric D Levens3, Alan H DeCherney2, George Patounakis2, Brian W Whitcomb4. 1. Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: hillmicah@mail.nih.gov. 2. Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Shady Grove Fertility Reproductive Science Center, Rockville, Maryland. 4. Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the P to oocyte (O) ratio (P/O) in the prediction of live birth in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): A total of 7,608 fresh autologous ART ET cycles. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Live birth. RESULT(S): Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models and receiver operating characteristic curves assessed the ability of P, O, and the P/O ratio to predict live birth. In univariate GEE models, P, O, and P/O were each associated with live birth. However, in multivariate GEE models, the P/O ratio was not associated with live birth, but P alone was. This suggested that converting P and O into a ratio of P/O was not more helpful than the two independent variables themselves. Measures of overall model fit further suggested that P/O did not increase the predictive ability of the model over P and O alone. Receiver operating characteristic curves using incremental predictors further demonstrated that the P/O provided no incremental improvement in predicting live birth over P and O separately. CONCLUSION(S): These data suggest that P and O have utility in prediction modeling but demonstrate that additional oocytes were not protective from the negative association of P with live birth. There was no incremental improvement related to the P/O ratio specifically for predicting live birth over each variable independently. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the P to oocyte (O) ratio (P/O) in the prediction of live birth in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): A total of 7,608 fresh autologous ART ET cycles. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Live birth. RESULT(S): Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models and receiver operating characteristic curves assessed the ability of P, O, and the P/O ratio to predict live birth. In univariate GEE models, P, O, and P/O were each associated with live birth. However, in multivariate GEE models, the P/O ratio was not associated with live birth, but P alone was. This suggested that converting P and O into a ratio of P/O was not more helpful than the two independent variables themselves. Measures of overall model fit further suggested that P/O did not increase the predictive ability of the model over P and O alone. Receiver operating characteristic curves using incremental predictors further demonstrated that the P/O provided no incremental improvement in predicting live birth over P and O separately. CONCLUSION(S): These data suggest that P and O have utility in prediction modeling but demonstrate that additional oocytes were not protective from the negative association of P with live birth. There was no incremental improvement related to the P/O ratio specifically for predicting live birth over each variable independently. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
ART; premature progesterone elevation; progesterone; progesterone to oocyte ratio
Authors: Matthew T Connell; George Patounakis; Mae Wu Healy; Alan H DeCherney; Kate Devine; Eric Widra; Michael J Levy; Micah J Hill Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Micah J Hill; Greene Donald Royster; Mae Wu Healy; Kevin S Richter; Gary Levy; Alan H DeCherney; Eric D Levens; Geeta Suthar; Eric Widra; Michael J Levy Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: E Labarta; J A Martínez-Conejero; P Alamá; J A Horcajadas; A Pellicer; C Simón; E Bosch Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2011-05-02 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Mae Wu Healy; George Patounakis; Matt T Connell; Kate Devine; Alan H DeCherney; Michael J Levy; Micah J Hill Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 7.329