Table 2.
Characteristics of the Selected Articles
| First Author (Year) | Study Design | Setting | Source of Data | Method of Data Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mansour et al. (2014) | Retrospective; cross-sectional survey | ART clinics | 18 centers (This report covers about 80% of the Egyptian ART activities in 2005, which means that about 20% of the data are missing.) | The International Committee Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) developed the data collection forms. The forms were sent to each ART clinic practicing in Egypt by the Egyptian IVF registry. Data came directly to the Egyptian registry anonymously. Participation was voluntary. |
| Gissler and Tiitinen (2001) | Retrospective; cross-sectional survey | Public and private IVF clinics | 19 clinics (7 public clinics and 12 private clinics) | Each year, all clinics providing IVF, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and/or Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET) treatments receive 10-page data collection forms. All clinics returned completed questionnaires. The responsible data collector(s) checked the data collection forms and the final statistics. The clinics rechecked the forms for missing data and inconsistent information. The data collection was voluntary. |
| Guzick et al. (1990) | Development | IVF/GIFT clinic | Diverse origins; available to all staff members during a treatment cycle | Data are entered into the system on a series of nine input screens during the cycle. Data entry start with a “header” screen for background data and ends with a “notes” screen. On the network: data are entered at the site where they are created. On a single computer system: all of the data can be entered at the time of the completion of the cycle. |
| Blenstrup and Knudsen (2011) | Cross-sectional survey | Public and private fertility clinics | Public and private fertility clinics | 1994–2005: paper-based form. 2005: electronic reporting in Medical Birth Register, Danish National Patient Register |
| Germond et al. (2008) | Cross-sectional survey | ART clinics | ART clinics | An international, four-level reporting system |
| Dyer and Kruger (2011) | Retrospective; cross-sectional survey | ART clinics | 12 ART clinics | National data collection was started in a two-step process: In the first step, data collection was done using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (2009). In the second step, a software program was developed in collaboration with the Registro Latinoamericano de Reproduccion Asistida with the aim of online reporting of more data. Participation of centers was voluntary. |
| Rosenfeld et al. (1978) | Development | Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania | Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania | The physician completes the data abstract form. Information is recorded at the time of each visit or contact of patient. |
| Coetsee et al. (2014) | Development | Fertility clinics in South Africa | Infertility clinics | Web-based program |
| Westergaard et al. (1999) | Comparative, cross-sectional | Public and private fertility clinics | Nine private and six public clinics | Data from the IVF registry and cross-linking data to other registries |
| Westergaard et al. (2000) | Comparative, cross-sectional | Public and private fertility clinics | Nine private and six public clinics | Data from the IVF registry and cross-linking data to other registries |
Abbreviations: ART, assisted reproductive technology; IVF, in vitro fertilization.
Sources:
Mansour, M., Y. El-Faissal, and O. Kamal. “The Egyptian IVF Registry Report: Assisted Reproductive Technology in Egypt 2005.” Middle East Fertility Society Journal 19, no. 1 (2014): 16–21.
Gissler, M., and A. Tiitinen. “IVF Treatments and Their Outcomes in Finland in the 1990s.” Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 80, no. 10 (2001): 937–44.
Guzick, D. S., J. Boles, and R. Schadle. “Data Base Management System for Assisted Reproduction.” Journal of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer 7, no. 5 (1990): 236–40.
Blenstrup, L. T., and L. B. Knudsen. “Danish Registers on Aspects of Reproduction.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 39, no. 7, suppl. (2011): 79–82.
Germond, M., F. Urner, A. Chanson, M. P. Primi, D. Wirthner, and A. Senn. “What Is the Most Relevant Standard of Success in Assisted Reproduction? The Cumulated Singleton/Twin Delivery Rates per Oocyte Pick-Up: The CUSIDERA and CUTWIDERA.” Human Reproduction 19, no. 11 (2004): 2442–44.
Dyer, S. J., and T. F. Kruger. “Assisted Reproductive Technology in South Africa: First Results Generated from the South African Register of Assisted Reproductive Techniques.” South African Medical Journal 102, no. 3 (2012): 167–70.
Rosenfeld, D. L., C. R. Garcia, W. Bullock, et al. “An Infertility Data Registry.” Fertility and Sterility 29, no. 1 (1978): 112–14.
Coetsee, J. L., T. F. Kruger, and D. Vine, “An Electronic Health Record for Infertility Clinics.” South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 20, no. 1 (2014).
Westergaard, H. B., A. M. Tranberg Johansen, K. Erb, and A. Nyboe Andersen. “Danish National In-Vitro Fertilization Registry 1994 and 1995: A Controlled Study of Births, Malformations and Cytogenetic Findings.” Human Reproduction 14, no. 7 (1999): 1896–1902.
Westergaard, H. B., A. M. Tranberg Johansen, K. Erb, and A. Nyboe Andersen. “Danish National IVF Registry 1994 and 1995. Treatment, Pregnancy Outcome and Complications During Pregnancy.” Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 79, no. 5 (2000): 384–89.