NYT article on IVF rates

Carol77B · April 2014

Just read an interesting New York Times article "Data Murky on Fertility Rates" from yesterday (saw it via Twitter). It was mostly info I knew (that the success rates are self-reported and there's no validation of the data). The interesting part, for me, was learning there's a company that will take your stats and give a more accurate report on potential success rates. Anyone know more about that or try it?

Lady2010 · April 2014

Hi - I saw the same article but am not sure I will try out one of the companies mentioned (esp since our diagnosis is unexplained). If the percentage were to come out much lower than the SART data, I would likely be devastated. And I want to try to be optimistic - even though that is easier said than done.

That being said - if I am still in the same position in a few months, I may take a look.

What I found most interesting in that article was that really isn't transparency in reporting - 1 cycle means even if it takes several transfers to achieve pregnancy that is a success. I learned this after my first failed cycle when my RE said it wasn't a failure (we had 1 egg frozen).

Would be interested in hearing other's views on this as well.

Milagros315 · April 2014

I've seen companies like that, but there's no way I would spend money for their input. I can't imagine how it would be reliable. They're cutting out the clinic/doctor entirely, right? While I completely agree that sart data can easily be skewed and I dont put my trust in that entirely, I don't think you can discount the fact that some labs have better equipment. Some doctors have a better sense of when to change meds/protocol or when exactly to trigger.

Eta: There is also a free website that I've tried. You put in all of your information such as age, diagnosis, number of cycles without success, protocol and so on. I tried that one and it gave me a slightly lower success rate than the average. I think endo gives slightly lower chances than unexplained IF.

pblge · April 2014

Those "tests" make me a bit mad--that assessment won't tell you anything that a good RE can't, and seems like just another way to profit off the incredibly vulnerable and desperate IF population. They're also only as good as their existing data to which you get compared, which almost by definition is out of date as soon as they build their models. I'd really like to know what variables they're using, and how they've measured them (E.g., is endometriosis a yes/no thing? If so, their model is useless based just on that!) We also know many people who are fabulous on paper, and should have great IVF results, but everything goes bonkers. I SERIOUSLY doubt their models would be able to tell those folks in advance that IVF will be harder than expected for them.

Statistics are useful, but charging people 50% for a lofty statistical analysis is highway robbery. We know the clinic statistics (SORT OF--this NYT article gives a great critique of those!), and we know our RE's assessment of how serious our various ailments are, therefore whether our a priori chances of success are greater or less than average. Giving those folks $50 won't tell us anything else--might as well pay a fortune teller.

Carol77B · April 2014

I figured (perhaps wrongly) that the company mentioned in the NYT article got the unfiltered IVF data and not just the summary data that is posted, to make their analysis. My RE gave me a 60% chance for both of my failed IVFs. I think I would have had the analysis done, if I'd known about it, before I started IVF. At this point, I've become a realist, even if my RE is still, perhaps, overly optimistic about my chances for success with each try. My impression is that few REs will tell you it's going to take multiple tries- I certainly was made to feel it would work the first time and I would have rather had a more realistic conversation. My prior research led me to believe that it would probably take about three tries, but then my RE is saying 60%, and of course I want to believe him. I ended up not doing a package (the break even point is three IVFs) so if my next IVF fails, I would have been better off paying for the package, but hearing 60% made me think I wouldn't really need more than one, possibly two. If the more detailed analysis had said for my particular situation, it takes women 3.4 times (or something like that) I probably would have bought the package. I've done a lot of data analysis/data manipulation with my job, so I would believe a reputable company's results over my RE whose expertise is treatment not success rates, etc.

Sha259 · April 2014

I'm coming to this discussion fresh from my IVF prep consultation (literally it was 2 hrs ago). And I have to say I feel my RE was very honest and upfront with me about not only our chances of success, but also the risk factors that can change or cancel our course of action. My chances according to my age (31), diagnosis (blocked tube and MFI) , and hormones/ovarian reserve (great), were 62% to concieve, but more like 50% to make it to live birth, according to my RE, for IVF#1. The chances only go down from there.

He also said that my chance of miscarriage was 20% for each transfer. I like these odds much better than IUI, but as with every medical procedure, there are always risks along with the expected outcome.

However, I look at this from the prospective of having had two surgeries and never having gotten the chance to be pregnant at all. I'll take the risk for the final reward.

ikrystal · April 2014

**loss mentioned**

After what happened to me and my boys, I am not a believer in statistics. The way we lost our boys was highly unusual, and our doctor estimated we were about 1 in 10,000. That means that the probability of it happening to us was extremely low, and yet here we are. The chances of me getting pregnant again using IVF are high, but if I don't get pregnant then those statistics are garbage. I have to agree with a lot of people - charging people money for a statistical analysis is a waste. However, I do think that the article itself is interesting.

SKLH · April 2014

I agree fully with @pblge And it almost pisses me off that they create that crap. To me it's total crap. Wanna know why? I was told I would be successful on my first round. Here I am at Embryo transfer #5 lol On paper I am PICTURE perfect. No big issues at all. Heck, not even any small issues. I make lots of embies, have thick lining, even genetically tested embryos.... unsuccessful. The truth of th ematter is this is a big LOTTERY. It's so unpredictable. My RE told me last week that he sees girls all the itme with bad looking uteruses that get pregnant so he has no idea why I am not since everyhitng looks so perfect lol There's NO way to predict this stuff. What a joke IMHO

Rebecca'sMama · April 2014

Statistics like these are useful for making predictions about groups of subjects but are not very useful in making predictions about a particular case.

Edited because it first said "butter" instead of "but are."

pblge · April 2014

Rebecca'sMama said:

Statistics like these are useful for making predictions about groups of subjects butter not very useful in making predictions about a particular case.

Precisely!

And @Carol77B - You're definitely right that not all REs will give you an honest picture; they're trying to sell you their services! Some are more scrupulous than others, of course.

blueeyes233 · April 2014

The last RE I consulted with gave me a score 16/20 which is "excellent" (mostly because I have high AMH for my age group due to PCOS). However the program she used only analyzed my data and didn't factor in DH's MFI at all.

My first RE said 60% odds (this seems to be a common percentage) but did say that it often takes 3 tries to get a take home baby.

I'll be doing cycle # 4 in late summer.

pjpahel · April 2014

Statistics can be both comforting and deceiving. I think that infertility statistics are so hard to truthfully track for many reasons. First being that we all have struggles due to different reasons, and therefore have the propensity to be more successful. Also, the clinics releasing the data have a vested interested in having good numbers, so I have a hard time trusting their statistics!

Pj

scooteriste · April 2014

I read that article and groaned when I saw these "pay for success rate" websites mentioned. As a community, IF patients get taken advantage of enough, so it's frustrating to see new companies popping up for profit. It's too bad we are all so taxed by this process or we could start a consumer advocacy group to try to protect ourselves.

ExoticAntibiotic · May 2014

I found this IVF prediction calculator: https://www.ivfpredict.com/index-1.html

My RE gave me that 60% chance of success figure for my fresh cycle, too. That calculator says my first shot had a 31.3% chance! This round it gives a 17% chance, hurray for turning 35.

rhiennac · May 2014

Edited for Spam

pblge · May 2014

ExoticAntibiotic said:

I found this IVF prediction calculator: https://www.ivfpredict.com/index-1.html

My RE gave me that 60% chance of success figure for my fresh cycle, too. That calculator says my first shot had a 31.3% chance! This round it gives a 17% chance, hurray for turning 35.

Yeah, I found that calculator before IVF #1 and was appalled by the numbers. I really don't think it's very accurate...at least I hope it's not, as my numbers are the same as you got!

NYT article on IVF rates

Re: NYT article on IVF rates

Choose Another Board

Search Boards