# IVFPREDICT.COM



## clogs

Hello 


I hope you are all well. I was just wanted to say don't be mad like me and do the IVF predict 9 point test. How can nine questions be accurate? I got a 19.6% of IVF being successful which ain't so great. Wish I hadn't done it as I have my next round either this month or next and I 39 at the end of the month have 6 frosties left from when I was 37 and miss miscarried last year after 1st IVF. It has put me in a bloody doom and gloom mood I am already certain we have run out of time. Underneath all the news articles are loads of people saying IVF is only for selfish women etc, why do I read these things and why do the opinions of bigoted ill  educated people still get my goat.


Rant over but please don't do it being told something is 99% accurate and getting a low score is just so negative when you are already feeling desperate.


Cloggs


----------



## valentina

Hey Cloggs

Please don't take any notice of this nonsense. This test just tells you your chances based on the average woman your age with a similar history. It can't do any more than that - it doesn't ask for your AMH, antral follicle count or FSH test results, how you've responded to treatment before ie number of eggs, embies, blasts etc. It didn't even give me a chance to input that we'd be using donor sperm instead of ICSI. It is extremely flawed to say the least. As for the commenters, what do they know? It's a bit like a man commenting on the pain of giving birth. It's one of those things you have to go through to have a valid opinion on. I wouldn't take any notice of a single one of them.

Please don't let it get you down. Keeping everything crossed for you for your next cycle hon. 

V xxx


----------



## kitten77

oh hun what a load of codswallop (thats the nicest word i could think of, i could have said a lot lot lot worse but didnt want to offend!)  

totally, 0% inaccurate, please do not take a blind bit of notice what these websites say, how in the world are they to know, i totally agree with Valentina they know nothing, they have no idea what YOU are like what YOUR body is like, how YOU respond to the drugs how YOUR embies are what YOUR eggs are like what DH sperm is like - they no NOTHING.

so please do not have the doom and gloom, people do these things as we are vunuable in the position we are in, and want every little bit of hope and these just home in on that.

you have not run out of time and good luck for your next tx - each cycle is different, focus on THIS cycle. big hugs.


----------



## valentina

Just to reassure you that this is a load of nonsense I had a bit of a play around with different inputs to see how the figures changed. Something very interesting happened. When I changed it from 39 with donor eggs to 40 with donor eggs the percentage went up from 28.8% to 40.9%. Brilliant! I'll wait till after March and take the 40 odd percent option then. Total rubbish, even by its own standards.

Hope you are feeling a bit better

V xxx


----------



## clogs

Thanks all. I think just had a bad reaction to all the ranting people full of hatred for people who just want their own child. I think panicking about running out of time is normal but a new day and like every other sucker in the New Year I am going to go and join the gym and get back to swimming a mile a day to get fit for next treatment!!! That is a far better way of getting rid of negative energy.


Thanks again common sense should say it is tripe as it doesn't even have a comprehensive list of reasons why you are seeking treatment, complete rubbish I agree.


Good luck all when are you all in for treatment?


Love Cxxxx


----------



## kitten77

just been told that this has been on the telly today!!!!!  how utterly awful, hope people do not use this and pin their hopes....or fears on this!!!!! 

makes me angry.


----------



## Mistletoe (Holly)

Well, I have just done it and it is a pile of the proverbial.

I know the questions they ask are general population questions that may help to identify good prognosis patients and poor, but they don't take into account your personal history predictors in enough detail.

I put my characteristics in and got 14.7% and 8.7% depending on how I answered.

My doctor put my chances of the first try at 20-30% based on my scans, blood tests and reasons for infertility.
I got pregnant after retrieving 22 eggs and getting 4 top quality embryos - having embryos frozen in a cycle is another good sign.
The pregnancy ended at 16 weeks - the baby was small for dates and died - but at my follow up my doctor said ''you have proven you are fertile'' and it was ''just bad luck with that particular embryo'' - miscarriage is common and no indication that the same would happen again. Many women have one or more miscarriages and go on to have healthy children - just because I can't just try again next month is no reason why I can't get pregnant again using IVF and have success.

She then put my chances of success at 60% per cycle - she said forget all of the population statistics, we have information from your scan and blood tests and now your response to treatment and how long you carried the pregnancy that puts you up higher than average.

She was right - my FET did not work, but a 2nd IVF at age 39 resulted in 8 fertilised eggs, 6 top quality on day 3 and 3 blasts by day 5-6. I am pregnant again.

3 cycles - 2 pregnancies - 66%. I know I have not had a live birth yet, but that does not mean you don't try - as I said before, many women (in fact almost all my friends) have had one or more miscarriages conceived naturally before having a baby.

People have commented that ''I get pregnant easily'' and ''I make IVF look easy'' - to someone who has been through the infertility mill for 10 years it is music to my ears.

Don't be disheartened and listen to your doctor only.


----------



## Rosey78

Heck what a load of codswallop................I have just done this and got 23.3%.  Shouldnt be allowed really should it...............GGRRRRRR made me angry!!!


----------



## ♥JJ1♥

http://www.fertilityfriends.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=253251.0

More discussion about it on news thread


----------



## Mistletoe (Holly)

around 20% - if someone told you there was a 1 in 5 chance of winning £1 million, would you buy a ticket? - I would!


----------



## karenanna

Well mine came up as 14.6% - what a load of rubbish! I now have my lovely boys, so ignore this calculator it is just a statistical model and clearly we are all different and just don't conform.

Karenanna xxx


----------



## drsmn

We appreciate that many people may be disappointed by their scores on the IVFpredict.com calculator. We developed this to ensure that people had a much more accurate estimate of their chances of success within the UK rather than just simply age related data as displayed by the HFEA and most clinics. The model  uses all the UK fresh cycles between 2003 and 2007, therefore it is based on more than 144,000 IVF cycles and works at a population level of being able to say whether you have low, medium or high chance of success. We are not suggesting that IVF will not work for you specifically but rather what is the likelihood of success. Therefore just because it is a low score does not mean that you will not have a live birth but just that your expectations of success may be set differently. We fully accept that other factors may contribute to success for example being a non-smoker, but this information was not available within the database for analysis. We wish all the fertility friends good luck with their treatment and hope that our calculator will help you prepare for IVF.


Professor Scott Nelson


----------



## kdb

Eeeek... only 21.5%    That's with 36 year old eggs, irregular ovulation (fundamentally easy to overcome with IVF), no previous IVF or pregnancy, no male factor.  Thankfully my clinic's live birth rates are more than twice that!!

I really do believe the clinic has a HUGE impact on the chance of success, having been treated at two which take very different approaches.  Needless to say that the one with 1) thorough testing of the female pre-cycle, and 2) closer (daily!) monitoring during the cycle, was the one we did IVF with and the team there helped us achieve a BFP.

I don't think the fact that there is a big sample size behind the tool necessarily is appropriate for something like IVF where clinics can each take a different approach to treatment, especially in areas of significance such as whether they regularly go to blast or not.


----------



## valentina

Prof Nelson

My posts are not about being disappointed with the stats that came out. I, personally, can't use your tool to get a proper idea of how likely my next treatment is to work as you don't give me the option to put in the treatment change we are trying. One of many restrictions of your calculator. 

My bigger issue is that when I played with the variables I got some ridiculous answers. Someone's chances with donor eggs increased by 17% when I put their age UP a year. Clear and utter nonsense.

Personally, I think you need to go back to the drawing board. 98% accurate my a***

V


----------



## valentina

I can't imagine the NHS would use something so flawed, generalised and unscientific. But then again, with this government and the cuts, who knows


----------



## Mistletoe (Holly)

Prof Nelson
Explain to me how my chances can be 14.3% at the age of 38 -39 and 12.7% if I change just the one variable of age to 35 - 37.

Are you suggesting that I have a better chance of success if I wait to my late 30s rather than get on with it in my mid 30s? Of course not!

And if I change the variable of cause of infertility from ''more than one cause'' (I have blocked tubes and my DH has azoospermia) to taking him out of the picture altogether - because I am using a healthy donor, and just putting ''damaged tubes'' my chances at age 39 drop from 14.3% to 6.4%.  

I know it is just based on a population and those women of that age at that time and what happened to them, but it is not very reassuring to users if the results do not even match what every ordinary person in the street knows. The potential implications that some places might start using it to decide whether you are eligible for treatment, as some have already started to wonder on here, makes it quite worrying.

Research, drugs and techniques have also developed in the last 7 years. 

The variables that make a difference are perhaps not sensitive enough - my clinic for instance use ICSI for donor sperm if you agree, as it has been frozen, and take your embryos to blastocyst stage if you have enough good ones on day 3 - many clinics could not culture to blastocysts even a few years ago.

I am really not convinced. It is not very logical!


----------



## valentina

Exactly Hazel. These were just the kinds of inconsistencies I was seeing. The biggest problem this tool has is that it's based purely on general, historical statistics and, even then, it would appear that these have been badly applied in places. There are so many things it doesn't take into account about each individual's personal circumstances, advances in knowledge and treatment that are happening all the time, such as the use of melatonin to improve egg quality, or IMSI to select better sperm.

Something akin to Moore's Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law also applies to cutting edge medical treatment like IVF. I'd have thought as scientists, Prof Nelson's team would get this. It feels to me that this was put together by a team who have some fundamental gaps of understanding when it comes to the field of IVF.

V xxx

/links


----------



## frannyboo

Hi guys,
I tried this one as well; my mum sent me the link; I think she thought it might make me feel better!

It's a load of absolute pants.  My mum got a score in the twenties (mine was 30%) and she's in her 50s and has had 7 children, been through the menopause and had a hysterectomy.  Absolute rubbish!


----------



## valentina

Lol your post made me laugh Franny. Your mum's score just about sums it up! xxx


----------



## kdb

Anyone checked what their dad would score


----------



## valentina

lmao. I'm off to ask him a few questions now... xx


----------



## clogs

Only deals with a fresh cycle and a limited research and I love that IVFPREDICT have managed to issue a statement on our website here!!!! Shouldn't be allowed.  


Cxxxxxx


----------



## valentina

Yeah totally. Registering here is low to say the least. This is for ladies who are trying to conceive, not dodgy professors trying to justify their bad research. xx


----------



## goslings

(statistically) The average human has one breast and one testicle. ~Des McHale

My chances of a successful IVF are not great as I have AMH 0.7 but I might have another go?


----------



## valentina

Lol @goslings. V funny!

I've been thinking about this more and more and how it's really bad, actually, that these so called scientists have set up this website when it cause untold upset to lots and lots of women. It shouldn't be allowed for them to do this when it's so inaccurate and unscientific. I'm all for hearing the truth about my chances and I think this is important for women but this could so easily cause unnecessary upset.

I'm going to write to the 'scientists' behind this vile site and tell them what I think. For anyone else who'd like to, their email addresses are:

[email protected]
[email protected]

V xx


----------

