Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31486806›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2017

The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of art laboratory performance indicators.

ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology, Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Clinical Pregnancy and Live Birth Outcomes From 445 Vitrified Oocyte Cycles in Australia.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Influencing factors of fertilization failure duringFrontiers in endocrinology · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology
Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat are appropriate performance indicators (PIs) for ART laboratories for use in monitoring 'fresh' IVF and ICSI cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: Minimum performance (competence) levels and aspirational (benchmark) values were recommended for a total of 19 indicators, including 12 key PIs (KPIs), five PIs and two reference indicators (RIs). WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: PIs are necessary for systematic monitoring of the laboratory and an important element within the Quality Management System. However, there are no established PIs for ART laboratories and there is very little evidence on the topic. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is the report of a 2-day consensus meeting of expert professionals. As a starting point for the discussion, two surveys were organized to collect information on indicators used in IVF laboratories. During the meeting, the results of the surveys, scientific evidence (where available), and personal clinical experience where integrated into presentations by experts on specific topics. After presentation, each proposed indicator was discussed until consensus was reached within the panel. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsExpert professionals representing different countries and settings convened in the consensus meeting. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The paper is divided in two parts: the workshop report and the recommendations of the expert panel. The second part reflects the discussion on each of the indicators, with the agreed definition, competence level and benchmark value for each of the 19 indicators, including 12 KPIs, 5 PIs and 2 RIs. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The KPIs are mainly based on expert opinion. Future research may warrant an update of the recommended KPIs, their definition and the competence level and benchmark values. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsBased on the information presented, each ART laboratory should select its own set of KPIs founded on laboratory organization, and processes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The consensus meeting and writing of the paper was supported by funds from ESHRE and Alpha. Alpha gratefully acknowledges the following organizations for their financial support, through the provision of unrestricted educational grants: Global Fertility Alliance, Merck, Origio and Vitrolife. There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Indexed as

embryoIVFKPIoocyteperformance indicatorsperm

Identifiers

PMID31486806
PMCPMC6276649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.