4.7 Article

The predictive value for in vitro fertility delivery rates is greatly impacted by the method used to select the threshold between normal and elevated basal follicle-stimulating hormone

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 89, Issue 4, Pages 868-878

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.03.100

Keywords

basal FSH; threshold values; IVF; live birth rate; infertility; ROC curves; efficiency curves; 95% CI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the predictive accuracy of different methodologies for selecting a basal FSH threshold level that prognosticates live birth after IVE Design: Retrospective. Setting: Academic private practice. Patient(s): Eight thousand nineteen patients who had their basal FSH levels determined by the program's endocrinology laboratory. Intervention(S): Thresholds between normal and elevated basal FSH levels were calculated by using six different methodologies. Main Outcome Measure(S): Live birth rate per initiated IVF cycle. Result(S): The thresholds selected by using the manufacturer's normal range or using 95% confidence intervals of I a fertile population, the infertile population, or distinct age groups within the infertile population all proved unsatisfactory. The live birth rates for patients in whom there had been a previously elevated FSH level were <= 43.7%. The efficiency curves that were created for each of the five age groups were the most useful. With appropriately selected thresholds, the predictive value of an abnormal result approaches 100%. Conclusion(S): The methodology used to select thresholds for basal FSH levels has enormous impact on the utility of the screening test. The use of anything other than clinical outcome-based methods to select the threshold greatly decreases the utility of the test and may lead to false conclusions or inaccurate patient counseling.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available