Fertility question

[Anonymous]

How can one find the success rate of a fertility Dr? It seems that practices with multiple Drs boast their success based on the practice and not individual practitioners.

[Anonymous]

You would also need to search based on your particular infertility diagnosis, OP. Some REs are better than others for different diagnoses.
I feel like this info used to be provided by ASRM, but it has been awhile since I searched for such info.

[Anonymous]

I have heard that many clinics internally track data and that some doctors have a much higher success rate than others but you will never know that data. Maddening!

[Anonymous]

You generally can't. You can find your clinics sart #s.

I guess you could ask and see what your Dr says in the initial intake/interview. Remember you're interviewing them at that consult. You can always switch providers

[Anonymous]

It’s irrelevant. What’s important is you. Either it will work for you or it won’t.

[Anonymous]

Most clinics work on a team model. So you won’t get “your doctor” necessarily for your eggs retrieval or transfer. It will be your doctor calling the shots about the choice of protocol. Additionally the embryology lab team matters a lot, and that isn’t doctor specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s irrelevant. What’s important is you. Either it will work for you or it won’t.

This + 100. The best doctor is the one best for your particular challenge + a good lab. The stats are largely meaningless. Some clinics self-select out challenging patients by pushing them to donor eggs or dropping them after a failure to keep their numbers up, some are clinics of last resort or take on challenging cases others don't -- which is often the case for university-research oriented clinics so their stats are bad, and some advertise heavily to case the easy cases such as fertilization preservation (i.e. young women wanting to freeze eggs). The stats also don't say anything about your particular case because they are general and not specific to types of diagnoses.

The best way to find the best doctor for you is to spend some time on fertility boards/Facebook groups and find the experiences of women with similar diagnoses. That's far more useful than SART stats.

[Anonymous]

I found fertilityIQ to be helpful when researching fertility doctors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s irrelevant. What’s important is you. Either it will work for you or it won’t.

This + 100. The best doctor is the one best for your particular challenge + a good lab. The stats are largely meaningless. Some clinics self-select out challenging patients by pushing them to donor eggs or dropping them after a failure to keep their numbers up, some are clinics of last resort or take on challenging cases others don't -- which is often the case for university-research oriented clinics so their stats are bad, and some advertise heavily to case the easy cases such as fertilization preservation (i.e. young women wanting to freeze eggs). The stats also don't say anything about your particular case because they are general and not specific to types of diagnoses.

The best way to find the best doctor for you is to spend some time on fertility boards/Facebook groups and find the experiences of women with similar diagnoses. That's far more useful than SART stats.

This. The SART numbers are so easily manipulated. You'll notice that SGF, for example, markets heavily to same-sex couples, single moms by choice, and couples with genetic illnesses who are doing IVF only for genetic screening. These groups are great for their statistics - neither group is actually infertile. They also push women to use DE. A 38 year old woman with significant DOR who does not want to use a donor is going to look at their statistics and see a +/- 30% chance of success per round of IVF. She doesn't realize that her chances are substantially lower than that, and that the 30% who achieve success likely have a much less challenging diagnosis than she does.

[Anonymous]

Your age and issues are more predictive of success. E.g.
43 - less than 5%
34 and DOR similar to a 43 year old
Etc, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s irrelevant. What’s important is you. Either it will work for you or it won’t.

This + 100. The best doctor is the one best for your particular challenge + a good lab. The stats are largely meaningless. Some clinics self-select out challenging patients by pushing them to donor eggs or dropping them after a failure to keep their numbers up, some are clinics of last resort or take on challenging cases others don't -- which is often the case for university-research oriented clinics so their stats are bad, and some advertise heavily to case the easy cases such as fertilization preservation (i.e. young women wanting to freeze eggs). The stats also don't say anything about your particular case because they are general and not specific to types of diagnoses.

The best way to find the best doctor for you is to spend some time on fertility boards/Facebook groups and find the experiences of women with similar diagnoses. That's far more useful than SART stats.

This. The SART numbers are so easily manipulated. You'll notice that SGF, for example, markets heavily to same-sex couples, single moms by choice, and couples with genetic illnesses who are doing IVF only for genetic screening. These groups are great for their statistics - neither group is actually infertile. They also push women to use DE. A 38 year old woman with significant DOR who does not want to use a donor is going to look at their statistics and see a +/- 30% chance of success per round of IVF. She doesn't realize that her chances are substantially lower than that, and that the 30% who achieve success likely have a much less challenging diagnosis than she does.

100%%%%

As someone who fell for this BS from Shady Grove they absolutely aren't honest about their success rate when you have a niche issue. Mine was recurrent pregnancy loss and they didn't actually treat the rpl so, of course, I miscarried again and almost lost my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s irrelevant. What’s important is you. Either it will work for you or it won’t.

This + 100. The best doctor is the one best for your particular challenge + a good lab. The stats are largely meaningless. Some clinics self-select out challenging patients by pushing them to donor eggs or dropping them after a failure to keep their numbers up, some are clinics of last resort or take on challenging cases others don't -- which is often the case for university-research oriented clinics so their stats are bad, and some advertise heavily to case the easy cases such as fertilization preservation (i.e. young women wanting to freeze eggs). The stats also don't say anything about your particular case because they are general and not specific to types of diagnoses.

The best way to find the best doctor for you is to spend some time on fertility boards/Facebook groups and find the experiences of women with similar diagnoses. That's far more useful than SART stats.

This. The SART numbers are so easily manipulated. You'll notice that SGF, for example, markets heavily to same-sex couples, single moms by choice, and couples with genetic illnesses who are doing IVF only for genetic screening. These groups are great for their statistics - neither group is actually infertile. They also push women to use DE. A 38 year old woman with significant DOR who does not want to use a donor is going to look at their statistics and see a +/- 30% chance of success per round of IVF. She doesn't realize that her chances are substantially lower than that, and that the 30% who achieve success likely have a much less challenging diagnosis than she does.

100%%%%

As someone who fell for this BS from Shady Grove they absolutely aren't honest about their success rate when you have a niche issue. Mine was recurrent pregnancy loss and they didn't actually treat the rpl so, of course, I miscarried again and almost lost my life.

Yes! SGF was exactly who I had in mind when I stated "some advertise heavily to catch the easy cases." I started with them at 36 years old and wasted 10s of thousands of dollars and 2 years with those arrogant morons because I didn't do my research before starting treatment and fell for their BS. I didn't realize that their success rates are so high because they are a baby factory for people who don't actually have infertility. They literally put people in a spreadsheets based on hormone levels and will not deviate no matter how horribly they fail. They are horrible for DOR, and they missed sooooo much with me that other doctors picked up on DAY 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s irrelevant. What’s important is you. Either it will work for you or it won’t.

This + 100. The best doctor is the one best for your particular challenge + a good lab. The stats are largely meaningless. Some clinics self-select out challenging patients by pushing them to donor eggs or dropping them after a failure to keep their numbers up, some are clinics of last resort or take on challenging cases others don't -- which is often the case for university-research oriented clinics so their stats are bad, and some advertise heavily to case the easy cases such as fertilization preservation (i.e. young women wanting to freeze eggs). The stats also don't say anything about your particular case because they are general and not specific to types of diagnoses.

The best way to find the best doctor for you is to spend some time on fertility boards/Facebook groups and find the experiences of women with similar diagnoses. That's far more useful than SART stats.

This. The SART numbers are so easily manipulated. You'll notice that SGF, for example, markets heavily to same-sex couples, single moms by choice, and couples with genetic illnesses who are doing IVF only for genetic screening. These groups are great for their statistics - neither group is actually infertile. They also push women to use DE. A 38 year old woman with significant DOR who does not want to use a donor is going to look at their statistics and see a +/- 30% chance of success per round of IVF. She doesn't realize that her chances are substantially lower than that, and that the 30% who achieve success likely have a much less challenging diagnosis than she does.

100%%%%

As someone who fell for this BS from Shady Grove they absolutely aren't honest about their success rate when you have a niche issue. Mine was recurrent pregnancy loss and they didn't actually treat the rpl so, of course, I miscarried again and almost lost my life.

Yes! SGF was exactly who I had in mind when I stated "some advertise heavily to catch the easy cases." I started with them at 36 years old and wasted 10s of thousands of dollars and 2 years with those arrogant morons because I didn't do my research before starting treatment and fell for their BS. I didn't realize that their success rates are so high because they are a baby factory for people who don't actually have infertility. They literally put people in a spreadsheets based on hormone levels and will not deviate no matter how horribly they fail. They are horrible for DOR, and they missed sooooo much with me that other doctors picked up on DAY 1.

Absolutely. Take a look at the patient success section on their website: https://www.shadygrovefertility.com/resources/patient-stories/

Of the first five listed, three are obvious "easy cases" - one with PCOS, and two lesbian couples. Another has endometriosis, which is readily addressable with IVF. It's a scam.

[Anonymous]

Avoid Johns Hopkins Fertility at all costs. That practice is a disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s irrelevant. What’s important is you. Either it will work for you or it won’t.

This + 100. The best doctor is the one best for your particular challenge + a good lab. The stats are largely meaningless. Some clinics self-select out challenging patients by pushing them to donor eggs or dropping them after a failure to keep their numbers up, some are clinics of last resort or take on challenging cases others don't -- which is often the case for university-research oriented clinics so their stats are bad, and some advertise heavily to case the easy cases such as fertilization preservation (i.e. young women wanting to freeze eggs). The stats also don't say anything about your particular case because they are general and not specific to types of diagnoses.

The best way to find the best doctor for you is to spend some time on fertility boards/Facebook groups and find the experiences of women with similar diagnoses. That's far more useful than SART stats.

This. The SART numbers are so easily manipulated. You'll notice that SGF, for example, markets heavily to same-sex couples, single moms by choice, and couples with genetic illnesses who are doing IVF only for genetic screening. These groups are great for their statistics - neither group is actually infertile. They also push women to use DE. A 38 year old woman with significant DOR who does not want to use a donor is going to look at their statistics and see a +/- 30% chance of success per round of IVF. She doesn't realize that her chances are substantially lower than that, and that the 30% who achieve success likely have a much less challenging diagnosis than she does.

This. My story is over a decade old, but a lot of people used to hate on dr Dimattina from dominion fertility. I was 34, and my Amh was undetectable. He told me adopt or donor egg. I begged him to try one natural cycle (he was a friend of a friend). He agreed, and it worked. The nurses were basically like you are a miracle. I never had a period again after having my child at 35.5.