Reply to SART Data -SG vs Columbia

Forum Index » Infertility Support and Discussion

Reply to "SART Data -SG vs Columbia"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]SART numbers don't tell the whole story, and they don't differentiate stim from natural cycle IVF/FET's.  We switched from SG to Dominion and got better results, and 3 PGS normal embryos.  We plan to transfer one next month in a natural FET.[/quote]

SG and [b]CFA don't do natural cycle IVF and FETs[/b], so it doesn't matter that the stats don't differentiate.

For Dominion, I also don't see how NCIVF stats separated out would help - if success rate is higher all it means that they don't correctly recommend stimulated IVF to others. [/quote]

Unless things have changed, this isn't true.  I did 2 natural cycle FETs (embryos were from a fresh round with stims) with Sacks.  They were both BFNs, but he did do them and didn't even suggest doing a medicated FET.

I have not been to SG, and I ended up finding success after switching from CFA to GW.  But the lesson I learned was that a second opinion on your treatment is always worthwhile.  And I don't put too much stock in SART numbers, since they don't reflect biases that can be introduced when comparing clinics that are more willing to take on difficult cases (e.g. GW) to those that won't.  Given your Hashi's, I would think that varying the protocol could make a big differnce, so I wouldn't let SART numbers keep you from switching.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics