Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17165151›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2007

Pregnancy prediction models and eSET criteria for IVF patients--do we need more information?

Lars D M Ottosen, Ulrik Kesmodel, Johnny Hindkjaer, Hans Jakob Ingerslev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lars D M OttosenThe Fertility Clinic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Sygehus, Brendstrupgaardsvej, DK-8200, Arhus N, Denmark. Lars.ottosen@ki.au.dk
Ulrik Kesmodel
Johnny Hindkjaer
Hans Jakob Ingerslev

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of the present study was to evaluate statistical prediction models and simple allocation criteria, based on predictors for pregnancy, as tools to identify a good prognosis group in a possible eSET setting.

methodsA pregnancy prediction model based on logistic regression models was generated by analysis of 1675 DET treatment cycles. The model was evaluated and compared to simple eSET allocation criteria.

resultsEmbryo quality, patient age, and basal FSH were identified as significant predictors (at 5% significance level) of pregnancy. Although comparable to previously generated models, the predictive ability of the present model was relatively poor and practically similar to simple allocation criteria based on age and embryo quality.

conclusionsExisting prediction models, or simple allocation criteria, are limited in identifying good prognosis patients. Future studies of the applicability of improved pregnancy prediction models will need very comprehensive and detailed patient and embryo information.

Indexed as

Embryo TransferFertilization in VitroModels, BiologicalPregnancy RateAdultAge FactorsEmbryo, MammalianFemaleFollicle Stimulating HormoneForecastingHumansLogistic ModelsPregnancyFollicle Stimulating Hormone

Identifiers

PMID17165151
PMCPMC3455082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.