Improvement of accuracy of clinical reports—the case of IVF cycle rank




Accurate clinical reports of In Vitro Fertilization Cycle Rank (IVF-CR) are important because of their predictive value of treatment success—clinical pregnancy. Our district currently provides more than a hundred IVF pick-up cycles per month. The study objective was to evaluate and improve the accuracy of IVF units’ reports of IVF-CR.


Reports of IVF-CR from local IVF units were correlated with administrative data. Couples who were having IVF treatments during the 3-month study period were included in the study. Data were collected before and after an intervention program.


During the study period accurate IVF-CR reporting rate improved from 27% (29 out of 108) to 83% (91 out of 110).


Accuracy of clinical reports of IVF-CR from local units significantly improved after the intervention. It is recommended that national regulatory bodies should issue compulsory guidelines for the recording and reporting of IVF-CR.


Advanced reproductive techniques Cost containment Quality improvement In Vitro Fertilization Reliability of clinical reports 


  1. 1.
    Internal Memorandum, 19/99 pp. 7–8. Central management—general health services.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Padilla SL, Garcia JE. Effect of maternal age and number of in vitro fertilization procedures on pregnancy outcome. Fertility and Sterility. 1989;52(2):270–3. Aug.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins JA. An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Human Reproduction Update. 2002;8(3):265–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stern Z, Laufer N, Levy R, Ben-Shushan D, Mor-Yosef S. Cost analysis of In Vitro fertilization. Israel J Med Sci. 1995;31(8):492–6.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ezra Y, Ben-Shushan D, Scenker J. The cost of micromanipulative assisted reproduction: new aspects to consider. Israel J Obste Gynecol. 1998;9(2):99–103.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jain T, Harlow BL, Hornstein MD. Insurance coverage and outcomes of In Vitro Fertilization. N Eng J Med. 2002;9:661–6. August, 374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lotan Y, Seidman DS. In vitro fertilization and embrio transfer in Israel: results from a national survey. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1992;9:419–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seidman DS, Lotan Y. In vitro fertilization and embrio transfer in Israel: 1990 results from a national survey. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1994;11:1–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seidman DS, Lotan Y. Assited reproductive technology in Israel: results of the national registry up to 1994. Israel J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;9:18–24.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Insler V, Gonnen O, Levran D, Lotan Y, Fish B, Potashninik G, Kogosovsky A, Ron-El R. Assisted reproductive technologies reported in the national registry of Israel 1995–1996. Harefuah. 2000;139(11–12):421–4. Dec.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Annas GJ. The shadowlands—secrets, lies and assisted reproduction. N Eng J Med September. 1998;339:935–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthHaifa UniversityHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.District of Haifa and Western GalileeGeneral Health ServicesHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations