ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2017
Key performance indicators score (KPIs-score) based on clinical and laboratorial parameters can establish benchmarks for internal quality control in an ART program.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Personal KPIs in IVF Laboratory: Are They Measurable or Distortable? A Case Study Using AI-Based Benchmarking.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Advanced KPI framework for IVF pregnancy prediction models in IVF protocols.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- High sperm DNA fragmentation: do we have robust evidence to support antioxidants and testicular sperm extraction to improve fertility outcomes? a narrative review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Review
- Common practices among consistently high-performing in vitro fertilization programs in the United States: 10-year update.Fertility and sterility · 2022Article
- Use of a new set of key performance indicators for evaluating the performance of anThe Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Deep learning early warning system for embryo culture conditions and embryologist performance in the ART laboratory.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- The Maribor consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of performance indicators for clinical practice in ART.Human reproduction open · 2021Article
- All Models Are Wrong, but Some Are Useful.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020Article
- New therapeutic protocol for improvement of endometrial receptivity (PRIMER) for patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) - A pilot study.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2019Article
- Treating Infertility: Current Affairs of Cross-border Reproductive Care.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveKPIs have been employed for internal quality control (IQC) in ART. However, clinical KPIs (C-KPIs) such as age, AMH and number of oocytes collected are never added to laboratory KPIs (L-KPIs), such as fertilization rate and morphological quality of the embryos for analysis, even though the final endpoint is the evaluation of clinical pregnancy rates. This paper analyzed if a KPIs-score strategy with clinical and laboratorial parameters could be used to establish benchmarks for IQC in ART cycles.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, 280 patients (36.4±4.3years) underwent ART. The total KPIs-score was obtained by the analysis of age, AMH (AMH Gen II ELISA/pre-mixing modified, Beckman Coulter Inc.), number of metaphase-II oocytes, fertilization rates and morphological quality of the embryonic lot.
resultsThe total KPIs-score (C-KPIs+L-KPIs) was correlated with the presence or absence of clinical pregnancy. The relationship between the C-KPIs and L-KPIs scores was analyzed to establish quality standards, to increase the performance of clinical and laboratorial processes in ART. The logistic regression model (LRM), with respect to pregnancy and total KPIs-score (280 patients/102 clinical pregnancies), yielded an odds ratio of 1.24 (95%CI = 1.16-1.32). There was also a significant difference (p<0.0001) with respect to the total KPIs-score mean value between the group of patients with clinical pregnancies (total KPIs-score=20.4±3.7) and the group without clinical pregnancies (total KPIs-score=15.9±5). Clinical pregnancy probabilities (CPP) can be obtained using the LRM (prediction key) with the total KPIs-score as a predictor variable. The mean C-KPIs and L-KPIs scores obtained in the pregnancy group were 11.9±2.9 and 8.5±1.7, respectively. Routinely, in all cases where the C-KPIs score was ≥9, after the procedure, the L-KPIs score obtained was ≤6, a revision of the laboratory procedure was performed to assess quality standards.
conclusionThis total KPIs-score could set up benchmarks for clinical pregnancy. Moreover, IQC can use C-KPIs and L-KPIs scores to detect problems in the clinical-laboratorial interface.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.