Blog

Accurate ways of determining chances of IVF success

Dr Knight has been providing algorithmic predictions to accurately predict the chance of a live birth after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for a number of years. Findings from a comparison study that

analysed the accuracy of the two most widely-used prediction models have just been published in the journal PLOS ONE, confirming Dr Knight’s use of the IVFpredict algorithm.


Dr Knight has been providing algorithmic predictions to accurately predict the chance of a live birth after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for a number of years. Findings from a comparison study that analysed the accuracy of the two most widely-used prediction models have just been published in the journal PLOS ONE, confirming Dr Knight’s use of the IVFpredict algorithm.

Researchers at the universities of Bristol and Glasgow compared how well the Templeton method and IVFpredict, two personalised prediction tools that help calculate the chance of a successful birth with IVF treatment, worked in 130, 960 IVF cycles.

The two mathematical tools were assessed to determine which was more accurate at predicting live birth rates. Although both tools are based on patient and couple measurements and characteristics and history of infertility, the Templeton model was developed using data from couples who received IVF two decades ago. This was at a time when success rates were considerably lower than currently and before the introduction of intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), which has transformed the use of IVF in couples where male infertility is a key problem. IVFpredict was developed in 2011 and incorporates recent treatments such as ICSI as well as the characteristics included in the Templeton model. However, it was important to show that IVFpredict was accurate in a complete different group of patients than those in which it was originally developed and also to see if it worked better, worse or the same as the Templeton tool that has been most commonly used for the last 20 years.

The findings showed both models underestimated the chances of a live birth, but this was particularly marked in the Templeton model. The team updated the models to reflect very recent improvements in live birth rates and this improved both models, and IVFpredict still remained the more accurate.

According to Dr Knight, “As clinicians' assessment of success, done without any tool to guide them, are widely varied for the same patients, this study is important. Not only does it validate the use of IVFpredict, it also shows that there are alternatives to your fertility doctor just taking a “stab in the dark” about your chances of having a baby. Therefore there is a guide to your doctor’s assessment of success when they first see you with infertility. And it they aren’t using this tool, you should ask yourself why not?”

“The findings will also be of interest for policy makers as precise estimates of IVF prognosis are essential to model the population burden of infertility and treatment and to inform cost-effective healthcare provision.”

Dr Knight has been providing algorithmic predictions to accurately predict the chance of a live birth after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for a number of years. Findings from a comparison study that analysed the accuracy of the two most widely-used prediction models have just been published in the journal PLOS ONE, confirming Dr Knight’s use of the IVFpredict algorithm.

Researchers at the universities of Bristol and Glasgow compared how well the Templeton method and IVFpredict, two personalised prediction tools that help calculate the chance of a successful birth with IVF treatment, worked in 130, 960 IVF cycles.

The two mathematical tools were assessed to determine which was more accurate at predicting live birth rates. Although both tools are based on patient and couple measurements and characteristics and history of infertility, the Templeton model was developed using data from couples who received IVF two decades ago. This was at a time when success rates were considerably lower than currently and before the introduction of intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), which has transformed the use of IVF in couples where male infertility is a key problem. IVFpredict was developed in 2011 and incorporates recent treatments such as ICSI as well as the characteristics included in the Templeton model. However, it was important to show that IVFpredict was accurate in a complete different group of patients than those in which it was originally developed and also to see if it worked better, worse or the same as the Templeton tool that has been most commonly used for the last 20 years.

The findings showed both models underestimated the chances of a live birth, but this was particularly marked in the Templeton model. The team updated the models to reflect very recent improvements in live birth rates and this improved both models, and IVFpredict still remained the more accurate.

According to Dr Knight, “As clinicians' assessment of success, done without any tool to guide them, are widely varied for the same patients, this study is important. Not only does it validate the use of IVFpredict, it also shows that there are alternatives to your fertility doctor just taking a “stab in the dark” about your chances of having a baby. Therefore there is a guide to your doctor’s assessment of success when they first see you with infertility. And it they aren’t using this tool, you should ask yourself why not?”

“The findings will also be of interest for policy makers as precise estimates of IVF prognosis are essential to model the population burden of infertility and treatment and to inform cost-effective healthcare provision.”

Book An Appointment
Ask A Question
Request More Information

Call 1300 899 850 or
Send an Enquiry