ArticleBMJ open2020
Predicting the chance on live birth per cycle at each step of the IVF journey: external validation and update of the van Loendersloot multivariable prognostic model.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Introducing artificial intelligence and sperm epigenetics in the fertility clinic: a novel foundation for diagnostics and prediction modelling.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Article
- Using the embryo-uterus statistical model to predict pregnancy chances by using cleavage stage morphokinetics and female age: two centre-specific prediction models and mutual validation.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo study the performance of the 'van Loendersloot' prognostic model for our clinic's in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in its original version, the refitted version and in an adapted version replacing previous by current cycle IVF laboratory variables.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study in our academic tertiary fertility clinic analysed 1281 IVF cycles of 591 couples, who completed at least one 2nd-6th IVF cycle with own fresh gametes after a previous IVF cycle with the same partner in our clinic between 2010 and 2018. The outcome of interest was the chance on a live birth after one complete IVF cycle (including all fresh and frozen embryo transfers from the same episode of ovarian stimulation). Model performance was expressed in terms of discrimination (c-statistics) and calibration (calibration model, comparison of prognosis to observed ratios of five disjoint groups formed by the quintiles of the IVF prognoses and a calibration plot).
resultsA total of 344 live births were obtained (26.9%). External validation of the original van Loendersloot model showed a poor c-statistic of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.61 to 0.68) and an underestimation of IVF success. The refitted and the adapted models showed c-statistics of respectively 0.68 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.71) and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.77). Similar c-statistics were found with cross-validation. Both models showed a good calibration model; refitted model: intercept=0.00 (95% CI: -0.23 to 0.23) and slope=1.00 (95% CI: 0.79 to 1.21); adapted model: intercept=0.00 (95% CI: -0.18 to 0.18) and slope=1.00 (95% CI: 0.83 to 1.17). Prognoses and observed success rates of the disjoint groups matched well for the refitted model and even better for the adapted model.
conclusionExternal validation of the original van Loendersloot model indicated that model updating was recommended. The good performance of the refitted and adapted models allows informing couples about their IVF prognosis prior to an IVF cycle and at the time of embryo transfer. Whether this has an impact on couple's expected success rates, distress and IVF discontinuation can now be studied.
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.