Public Reporting of IVF Outcomes Influences Medical Decision-making and Physician Training

Overview

Journal Fertil Res Pract

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Reproductive Medicine

Date 2020 Feb 20

PMID 32071729

Citations 3

Authors

Stephanie Gunderson

Emily S Jungheim

Caleb B Kallen

Kenan Omurtag

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Since 1992 ART clinics have been required to report outcome data. Our objective was to assess practitioners' opinions of the impact of public reporting of assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes on treatment strategies, medical decision-making, and fellow training.

Methods: Survey study performed in an academic medical center. Members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and the Society of Reproductive Surgery were recruited to participate in an online survey in April 2012. Categorical survey responses were expressed as percentages. Written responses were categorized according to common themes regarding effects of reporting on participants' medical management of patients. The study was primarily qualitative and was not powered to make statistical conclusions.

Results: Of 1019 surveys sent, 323 participants (31.7%) responded from around the United States, and 275 provided complete data. Nearly all (273 of 282; 96.8%) participants responded that public reporting sometimes or always affected other providers' practices, and 264 of 281 (93.9%) responded that other practitioners were motivated to deny care to poor-prognosis patients to improve reported success rates. However, only 121 of 282 (42.9%) indicated that public reporting influenced their own medical management. The majority of respondents agreed that public reporting may hinder adoption of single embryo transfer practices (194 of 299; 64.9%) and contribute to the persistent rate of twinning in in vitro fertilization (187 of 279; 67%). A small majority (153 of 279; 54.8%) felt that public reporting did not benefit fellow training, and 58 (61.7%) of the 94 participants who trained fellows believed that having fellows perform embryo transfers reduced pregnancy rates. A small majority (163 of 277; 58.8%) of respondents reported their ART success rates on clinical websites. However, the majority (200 of 275; 72.7%) of respondents compared their success rates with those of other clinics. Finally, most respondents (211 of 277; 76%) believed that most centers that advertised their success rates did so in ways that were misleading to patients.

Conclusions: Public reporting of ART clinical outcomes is intended to drive improvement, promote trust between patients and providers, and inform consumers and payers. However, providers reported that they modified their practices, felt others denied care to poor-prognosis patients, and limited participation of trainees in procedures in response to public reporting of ART outcomes.

Citing Articles

Health care experiences of individuals accessing or undergoing fertilization (IVF) in the U.S.: a narrative review of qualitative studies.

Peterson S, Jennings Mayo-Wilson L, Spigel L, Morgan I, Parker A Front Reprod Health. 2025; 7:1490917.

PMID: 40017896 PMC: 11865040. DOI: 10.3389/frph.2025.1490917.

Unveiling clinic variation in utilization of ICSI, PGT, and blastocyst transfer: a comprehensive study using the SART database (2014-2020).

Claffey A, Ngo A, McIntire D, Doody K, Doody K J Assist Reprod Genet. 2025; .

PMID: 39910000 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-025-03413-9.

A comparison of assisted human reproduction (AHR) regulation in Ireland with other developed countries.

McDermott O, Ronan L, Butler M Reprod Health. 2022; 19(1):62.

PMID: 35248065 PMC: 8898507. DOI: 10.1186/s12978-022-01359-0.

Appraisal of Experimental Methods to Manage Menopause and Infertility: Intraovarian Platelet-Rich Plasma vs. Condensed Platelet-Derived Cytokines.

Scott Sills E, Wood S Medicina (Kaunas). 2022; 58(1).

PMID: 35056311 PMC: 8779970. DOI: 10.3390/medicina58010003.

Factors Associated with In Vitro Fertilization Live Birth Outcome: A Comparison of Different Classification Methods.

Amini P, Ramezanali F, Parchehbaf-Kashani M, Maroufizadeh S, Omani-Samani R, Ghaheri A Int J Fertil Steril. 2021; 15(2):128-134.

PMID: 33687166 PMC: 8052806. DOI: 10.22074/IJFS.2020.134582.

References

Jungheim E, Ryan G, Levens E, Cunningham A, Macones G, Carson K . Embryo transfer practices in the United States: a survey of clinics registered with the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril. 2009; 94(4):1432-1436. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.07.987. View

Huang J, Discepola F, Al-Fozan H, Tulandi T . Quality of fertility clinic websites. Fertil Steril. 2005; 83(3):538-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.08.036. View

Wilkinson J, Vail A, Roberts S . Direct-to-consumer advertising of success rates for medically assisted reproduction: a review of national clinic websites. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(1):e012218. PMC: 5278289. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012218. View

Luceno F, Castilla J, Gomez-Palomares J, Cabello Y, Hernandez J, Marqueta J . Comparison of IVF cycles reported in a voluntary ART registry with a mandatory registry in Spain. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25(12):3066-71. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq267. View

Coutifaris C . Freeze-only in vitro fertilization cycles for all?. Fertil Steril. 2017; 108(2):233-234. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.028. View

Kushnir V, Vidali A, Barad D, Gleicher N . The status of public reporting of clinical outcomes in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100(3):736-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.012. View

Kulak D, Jindal S, Oh C, Morelli S, Kratka S, McGovern P . Reporting in vitro fertilization cycles to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology database: where have all the cycles gone?. Fertil Steril. 2016; 105(4):927-931.e3. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.12.128. View

Winker M, Flanagin A, White J, Andrews K, Kennett R, DeAngelis C . Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites. American Medical Association. JAMA. 2000; 283(12):1600-6. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.12.1600. View

Narins C, Dozier A, Ling F, Zareba W . The influence of public reporting of outcome data on medical decision making by physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165(1):83-7. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.1.83. View

10.

Omurtag K, Grindler N, Roehl K, Bates Jr G, Beltsos A, Odem R . How members of the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and Society of Reproductive Surgeons evaluate, define, and manage hydrosalpinges. Fertil Steril. 2012; 97(5):1095-100.e1-2. PMC: 3874806. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.02.026. View

11.

Williams R, Doody K, Schattman G, Adashi E . Public reporting of assisted reproductive technology outcomes: past, present, and future. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 212(2):157-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.05.010. View

12.

Adashi E, Wyden R . Public reporting of clinical outcomes of assisted reproductive technology programs: implications for other medical and surgical procedures. JAMA. 2011; 306(10):1135-6. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.1249. View

13.

Heitmann R, Hill M, Csokmay J, Pilgrim J, DeCherney A, Deering S . Embryo transfer simulation improves pregnancy rates and decreases time to proficiency in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility fellow embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2017; 107(5):1166-1172.e1. PMC: 6555143. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.016. View

14.

Vuong L, Dang V, Ho T, Huynh B, Ha D, Pham T . IVF Transfer of Fresh or Frozen Embryos in Women without Polycystic Ovaries. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378(2):137-147. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1703768. View

15.

Blackwell R, Carr B, Chang R, DeCherney A, Haney A, Keye Jr W . Are we exploiting the infertile couple?. Fertil Steril. 1987; 48(5):735-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)59521-1. View

16.

. Guidelines for advertising by ART programs. Fertil Steril. 2004; 82(2):527-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.05.020. View

17.

Kresowik J, Sparks A, Duran E, Shah D . Lapse in embryo transfer training does not negatively affect clinical pregnancy rates for reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellows. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103(3):728-33.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.102. View

18.

Lawrence D, Rosenwaks Z . Implications of the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992. Fertil Steril. 1993; 59(2):288-90. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)55669-6. View

19.

Niederberger C . Assisted reproductive technologies on the Web. Fertil Steril. 2005; 83(3):550-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.10.036. View

20.

Papageorgiou T, Hearns-Stokes R, Leondires M, Miller B, Chakraborty P, Cruess D . Training of providers in embryo transfer: what is the minimum number of transfers required for proficiency?. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16(7):1415-9. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/16.7.1415. View