Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/116221
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBensdorp, A.-
dc.contributor.authorvan der Steeg, J.-
dc.contributor.authorSteures, P.-
dc.contributor.authorHabbema, J.-
dc.contributor.authorHompes, P.-
dc.contributor.authorBossuyt, P.-
dc.contributor.authorvan der Veen, F.-
dc.contributor.authorMol, B.-
dc.contributor.authorEijkemans, M.-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationReproductive Biomedicine Online, 2017; 34(6):619-626-
dc.identifier.issn1472-6483-
dc.identifier.issn1472-6491-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/116221-
dc.description.abstractOne of the aims in reproductive medicine is to differentiate between couples that have favourable chances of conceiving naturally and those that do not. Since the development of the prediction model of Hunault, characteristics of the subfertile population have changed. The objective of this analysis was to assess whether additional predictors can refine the Hunault model and extend its applicability. Consecutive subfertile couples with unexplained and mild male subfertility presenting in fertility clinics were asked to participate in a prospective cohort study. We constructed a multivariable prediction model with the predictors from the Hunault model and new potential predictors. The primary outcome, natural conception leading to an ongoing pregnancy, was observed in 1053 women of the 5184 included couples (20%). All predictors of the Hunault model were selected into the revised model plus an additional seven (woman's body mass index, cycle length, basal FSH levels, tubal status,history of previous pregnancies in the current relationship (ongoing pregnancies after natural conception, fertility treatment or miscarriages), semen volume, and semen morphology. Predictions from the revised model seem to concur better with observed pregnancy rates compared with the Hunault model; c-statistic of 0.71 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.73) compared with 0.59 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.61).-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityAlexandra J.Bensdorp, Jan Willemvan der Steeg, Pieternel Steures, J. Dik F.Habbema, Peter G.A.Hompese, Patrick M.M.Bossuyt, Fulcovan der Veena, Ben W.J.Mol, Marinus J.C.Eijkemans-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherElsevier-
dc.rights© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Reproductive Healthcare Ltd.-
dc.source.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.03.014-
dc.subjectNatural conception-
dc.subjectPrediction model-
dc.subjectPrognosis-
dc.subjectSubfertility-
dc.titleA revised prediction model for natural conception-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.03.014-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
dc.identifier.orcidMol, B. [0000-0001-8337-550X]-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 3
Paediatrics publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.