چهارشنبه 13 خرداد 1405
[Archive]
دوره 24، شماره 4 - ( 2-1405 )
جلد 24 شماره 4 صفحات 296-287 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Ethics code: E-30785963–020-220146
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Korkmaz O, Karabulut S, Yilmaz E, Delikara N. Clinician-related variability as an ındependent determinant of ın vitro fertilization success: A retrospective cohort study of ıntracytoplasmic sperm ınjection cycles. IJRM 2026; 24 (4) :287-296
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-3712-fa.html
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-3712-fa.html
Clinician-related variability as an ındependent determinant of ın vitro fertilization success: A retrospective cohort study of ıntracytoplasmic sperm ınjection cycles. International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine. 1405; 24 (4) :287-296
چکیده: (15 مشاهده)
Background: In vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes are shaped by individual factors, laboratory conditions, and clinician performance; however, while embryologists and laboratory conditions are well studied, clinician-related variables remain less explored.
Objective: This study aims to evaluate whether pregnancy outcomes vary in IVF cycles managed by different clinicians.
Materials and Methods: In this cohort study, data of 3017 women who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection at the IVF Center of Kadıköy Florence Nightingale hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye from January 2013-December 2020 were extracted from their medical records and retrospectively reviewed. Clinical pregnancy rates were compared between clinicians.
Results: Clinical pregnancy rates differed significantly between clinicians, ranging from 13.6-56.0% (p = 0.023). The overall pregnancy rate was 29.9%. In the multivariate analysis, even after adjusting for maternal age, body mass index, duration of infertility, and anti-Müllerian hormone levels, the clinician variable retained its significance as an independent predictor (adjusted odds ratios: 0.45-2.12, p = 0.018).
Conclusion: Our study shows that clinician-related factors independently shape IVF success. Clinical expertise, judgment, and surgical skills affect outcomes throughout the IVF cycle, not only at embryo transfer. Improving laboratory conditions alone is insufficient; clinician training, performance standardization, and ongoing professional development are also essential. Thus, clinician performance should be integrated into quality assurance and further evaluated in prospective multicenter studies.
Objective: This study aims to evaluate whether pregnancy outcomes vary in IVF cycles managed by different clinicians.
Materials and Methods: In this cohort study, data of 3017 women who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection at the IVF Center of Kadıköy Florence Nightingale hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye from January 2013-December 2020 were extracted from their medical records and retrospectively reviewed. Clinical pregnancy rates were compared between clinicians.
Results: Clinical pregnancy rates differed significantly between clinicians, ranging from 13.6-56.0% (p = 0.023). The overall pregnancy rate was 29.9%. In the multivariate analysis, even after adjusting for maternal age, body mass index, duration of infertility, and anti-Müllerian hormone levels, the clinician variable retained its significance as an independent predictor (adjusted odds ratios: 0.45-2.12, p = 0.018).
Conclusion: Our study shows that clinician-related factors independently shape IVF success. Clinical expertise, judgment, and surgical skills affect outcomes throughout the IVF cycle, not only at embryo transfer. Improving laboratory conditions alone is insufficient; clinician training, performance standardization, and ongoing professional development are also essential. Thus, clinician performance should be integrated into quality assurance and further evaluated in prospective multicenter studies.
نوع مطالعه: Original Article |
فهرست منابع
1. Ombelet W. WHO fact sheet on infertility gives hope to millions of infertile couples worldwide. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2020; 12: 249-251.
2. Huang B, Wang Z, Kong Y, Jin M, Ma L. Global, regional and national burden of male infertility in 204 countries and territories between 1990 and 2019: An analysis of global burden of disease study. BMC Public Health 2023; 23: 2195. [DOI:10.1186/s12889-023-16793-3] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Cox CM, Thoma ME, Tchangalova N, Mburu G, Bornstein MJ, Johnson CL, et al. Infertility prevalence and the methods of estimation from 1990 to 2021: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Open 2022; 2022: hoac051. [DOI:10.1093/hropen/hoac051] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Maheshwari A. In vitro fertilisation. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 2020; 30: 48-54. [DOI:10.1016/j.ogrm.2019.11.002]
5. Khalife D, Nassar A, Khalil A, Awwad J, Abu Musa A, Hannoun A, et al. Cumulative live-birth rates by maternal age after one or multiple in vitro fertilization cycles: An institutional experience. Int J Fertil Steril 2020; 14: 34-40.
6. Knudtson JF, Robinson RD, Sparks AE, Hill MJ, Chang TA, Van Voorhis BJ. Common practices among consistently high-performing in vitro fertilization programs in the United States: 10-year update. Fertil Steril 2022; 117: 42-50. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.09.010] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Vaiarelli A, Zacà C, Spadoni V, Cimadomo D, Conforti A, Alviggi C, et al. Clinical and laboratory key performance indicators in IVF: A consensus between the Italian Society of Fertility and Sterility and Reproductive Medicine (SIFES-MR) and the Italian Society of Embryology, Reproduction and Research (SIERR). J Assist Reprod Genet 2023; 40: 1479-1494. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-023-02792-1] [PMID] [PMCID]
8. Muhaidat N, Karam AM, Nabhan MS, Dabbah T, Odeh B, Eid M, et al. Factors affecting the outcomes of first in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: A retrospective investigation. Int J Womens Health 2023; 15: 1537-1545. [DOI:10.2147/IJWH.S431468] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Cirillo F, Immediata V, Ronchetti C, Carletti T, Morenghi E, Albani E, et al. Steps forward in embryo transfer technique: A retrospective study comparing direct versus afterload catheters at different time frames. J Assist Reprod Genet 2023; 40: 2895-2902. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-023-02957-y] [PMID] [PMCID]
10. McQueen DB, Borazjani A, Yeh C, Dong S, Milad MP, Feinberg EC. The use of an embryo transfer simulator to compare transfer techniques and pregnancy outcomes among physicians. F S Rep 2024; 5: 183-188. [DOI:10.1016/j.xfre.2024.04.003] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Mizrachi Y, McQueen DB. Embryo transfer success: It is in our hands. Fertil Steril 2022; 118: 815-819. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.08.858] [PMID]
12. D'Angelo A, Panayotidis C, Alteri A, Mcheik S, Veleva Z. Evidence and consensus on technical aspects of embryo transfer. Hum Reprod Open 2022; 2022: hoac038. [DOI:10.1093/hropen/hoac038] [PMID] [PMCID]
13. Galati G, Reschini M, Mensi L, Di Dio C, Somigliana E, Muzii L. The impact of difficult embryo transfer on the success of IVF: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2023; 13: 22188. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-023-49141-x] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Tyler B, Walford H, Tamblyn J, Keay SD, Mavrelos D, Yasmin E, et al. Interventions to optimize embryo transfer in women undergoing assisted conception: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses. Hum Reprod Update 2022; 28: 480-500. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmac009] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Cozzolino M, Vitagliano A, Di Giovanni MV, Laganà AS, Vitale SG, Blaganje M, et al. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: Summary of the evidence and new perspectives. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2018; 36: 524-542. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.01.015] [PMID]
16. Matorras R, Urquijo E, Mendoza R, Corcóstegui B, Expósito A, Rodríguez-Escudero FJ. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves pregnancy rates and increases the frequency of easy transfers. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1762-1766. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/17.7.1762] [PMID]
17. Coroleu B, Carreras O, Veiga A, Martell A, Martinez F, Belil I, et al. Embryo transfer under ultrasound guidance improves pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 616-620. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/15.3.616] [PMID]
18. Fu L, Zhou Y, Xu L, Hu YOO, Chen S, Wang M, et al. The influence and association of blood on transfer catheter and vaginal microbiota on pregnancy outcomes in frozen-embryo transfer cycles. J Reprod Immunol 2025; 169: 104530. [DOI:10.1016/j.jri.2025.104530] [PMID]
19. Rezaie M, Rezaie MJ, Seyedoshohadaie F, Alahvaisi A, Azizian K, Nouri B, et al. The relationship between microbial contaminations of embryo transfer catheters with pregnancy outcome after embryo transfer. Ann Med Surg 2023; 85: 5445-5449. [DOI:10.1097/MS9.0000000000001186] [PMID] [PMCID]
20. Sun X, Cai J, Liu L, Chen H, Jiang X, Ren J. Uterine factors modify the association between embryo transfer depth and clinical pregnancy. Sci Rep 2022; 12: 14269. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-022-18636-4] [PMID] [PMCID]
21. Cirillo F, Patrizio P, Baccini M, Morenghi E, Ronchetti C, Cafaro L, et al. The human factor: Does the operator performing the embryo transfer significantly impact the cycle outcome? Hum Reprod 2020; 35: 275-282. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dez290] [PMID] [PMCID]
22. Choucair F, Younis N, Hourani A. The value of the modern embryologist to a successful IVF system: Revisiting an age-old question. Middle East Fertil Soc J 2021; 26: 15. [DOI:10.1186/s43043-021-00061-8]
23. Cirillo F, Spadaro D, Morenghi E, Baccini M, Busnelli A, Ronchetti C, et al. Different actors for the same play: The impact of the embryologist performing the embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2022; 45: 661-668. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.06.002] [PMID]
24. Campbell A, Cohen J, Ivani K, Morbeck D, Palmer G, Mortimer S. The in vitro fertilization laboratory: Teamwork and teaming. Fertil Steril 2022; 117: 27-32. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.09.031] [PMID]
25. Zou H, Kemper JM, Hammond ER, Xu F, Liu G, Xue L, et al. Blastocyst quality and reproductive and perinatal outcomes: A multinational multicentre observational study. Hum Reprod 2023; 38: 2391-2399. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dead212] [PMID] [PMCID]
26. Chansel-Debordeaux L, Carles M, Moreau J, Depuydt C, Gallo S, Genvrin E, et al. How and when to measure pH in IVF culture media: Validation of a portable blood gas analyzer in two IVF culture dishes for time lapse and conventional incubators. J Assist Reprod Genet 2023; 40: 1677-1687. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-023-02828-6] [PMID] [PMCID]
27. Bartolacci A, Tondo F, Alteri A, Solano Narduche L, de Girolamo S, D'Alessandro G, et al. The task matters: A comprehensive review and proposed literature score of the effects of chemical and physical parameters on embryo developmental competence. Life 2023; 13: 2161. [DOI:10.3390/life13112161] [PMID] [PMCID]
28. Walker JV, Premannandan H, Barrie A, Kirkman-Brown JC, Newby H, Association of reproductive and clinical scientists. Good practice in clinical embryology laboratories: Association of reproductive and clinical scientists guidelines 2024. Reprod Biomed Online 2024; 49: 104102. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104102] [PMID]
29. Cherouveim P, Jiang VS, Kanakasabapathy MK, Thirumalaraju P, Souter I, Dimitriadis I, et al. Quality assurance (QA) for monitoring the performance of assisted reproductive technology (ART) staff using artificial intelligence (AI). J Assist Reprod Genet 2023; 40: 241-249. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-022-02649-z] [PMID] [PMCID]
30. Wang Y, Zhang M, Shi H, Yi S, Li Q, Su Y, et al. Causes and effects of oocyte retrieval difficulties: A retrospective study of 10,624 cycles. Front Endocrinol 2022; 12: 564344. [DOI:10.3389/fendo.2021.564344] [PMID] [PMCID]
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
