Table 3.
Effect and importance (in decreasing order) of each predictor on live birth over multiple complete cycles of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) adjusted for patient characteristics and treatment information at first complete cycle (post-treatment model)
Predictors | Odds ratio (95% CI) | P value | Adequacy |
---|---|---|---|
Intercept | <0.001 | ||
Complete cycle No: | |||
1 (Reference) | 1 | ||
2 | 0.82 (0.80 to 0.85) | <0.001 | |
3 | 0.70 (0.67 to 0.73) | <0.001 | |
4 | 0.60 (0.56 to 0.65) | <0.001 | |
5 | 0.51 (0.44 to 0.58) | <0.001 | |
6 | 0.46 (0.37 to 0.58) | <0.001 | |
Patient characteristics | |||
Woman’s age to 31 v 37 years* | 1.53 (1.49 to 1.58.) | <0.001 | 0.435 |
Duration to 3 v 6 years | 1.06 (1.05 to 1.08) | <0.001 | 0.036 |
Year first complete cycle started to 2006 v 2001* | 1.29 (1.26 to 1.32) | <0.001 | 0.018 |
Tubal infertility to yes v no | 0.80 (0.78 to 0.83) | <0.001 | 0.007 |
Previous pregnancy in couple to no v yes | 0.95 (0.93 to 0.98) | <0.001 | 0.0001 |
Treatment information at first complete cycle | |||
Cryopreservation of embryos to yes v no | 1.91 (1.86 to 1.96) | <0.001 | 0.387 |
No of eggs collected to 13 v 5* | 1.29 (1.27 to 1.32) | <0.001 | 0.378 |
Stage of embryos transferred: | <0.001 | 0.123 | |
Double cleavage | 1 | ||
No embryos transferred | 0.34 (0.32 to 0.36) | <0.001 | |
Single cleavage | 0.57 (0.54 to 0.60) | <0.001 | |
Single blastocyst | 1.07 (0.93 to 1.24) | 0.35 | |
Double blastocyst | 1.79 (1.67 to 1.91) | <0.001 | |
Triple cleavage | 1.02 (0.98 to 1.07) | 0.36 | |
Triple blastocyst | 1.58 (1.15 to 2.14) | 0.004 | |
Treatment type to ICSI v IVF | 0.91 (0.89 to 0.93) | <0.001 | 0.002 |
ICSI=intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
*Interquartile odds ratio was calculated to aid interpretation of continuous predictors of age, duration of infertility, year first complete cycle started, and eggs collected. It is defined as the ratio of the odds of a live birth for the 75th centile and the odds of a live birth for the 25 centile of the predictor.
Nagelkerke’s R2 (amount of explained variation in model)=14.7%; Tjur’s coefficient of discrimination=510.3%.