| dc.contributor.author | Hernandez-Torres, E | |
| dc.contributor.author | Navarro Espigares, José Luis | |
| dc.contributor.author | Clavero, A | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lopez-Regalado, ML | |
| dc.contributor.author | Camacho Ballesta, José Antonio | |
| dc.contributor.author | Onieva-Garcia, MA | |
| dc.contributor.author | Martinez, L | |
| dc.contributor.author | Castilla Alcalá, José Antonio | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-01-20T08:37:54Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-01-20T08:37:54Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Hernandez Torres E, Navarro-Espigares JL, Clavero A, López-Regalado M, Camacho-Ballesta JA, Onieva-García M, Martínez L, Castilla JA. Economic evaluation of elective single-embryo transfer with subsequent single frozen embryo transfer in an in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection program. Fertil Steril. 2015 Mar;103(3):699-706. | es_ES |
| dc.identifier.other | PMID: 25557244 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10481/99627 | |
| dc.description.abstract | To analyze the cost-effectiveness of IVF-ICSI cycles with elective single-embryo transfer (eSET), plus elective single frozen embryo transfer (eSFET) if pregnancy is not achieved, compared with double-embryo transfer (DET).
Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis.
Setting: Public hospital.
Patient(s): A population of 121 women (<38 years old), undergoing their first or second IVF cycles.
Intervention(s): We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using the results of a prospective clinical trial. The women in group 1 received eSET plus eSFET, and those in group 2 received DET. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.
Main outcome measure(s): Live birth delivery rate.
Result(s): The cumulative live birth delivery rate was 38.60% in the eSET+eSFET group versus 42.19% in the DET group. The mean costs per patient were €5,614.11 in the eSET+eSFET group and €5,562.29 in the DET group. These differences were not statistically significant. The rate of multiple gestation was significantly lower in the eSET group than in the DET group (0 vs. 25.9%).
Conclusion(s): This study does not show that eSET is superior to DET in terms of effectiveness or of costs. The lack of superiority of the results for the eSET+eSFET and the DET groups corroborates that the choice of strategy to be adopted should be determined by the context of the health care system and the individual prognosis. | es_ES |
| dc.language.iso | eng | es_ES |
| dc.publisher | Elsevier | es_ES |
| dc.subject | Economic evaluation | es_ES |
| dc.subject | probabilistic sensitivity analysis | es_ES |
| dc.subject | assisted reproduction, | es_ES |
| dc.subject | single-embryo transfer | es_ES |
| dc.title | Economic evaluation of elective single-embryo transfer with subsequent single frozen embryo transfer in an in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection program | es_ES |
| dc.type | journal article | es_ES |
| dc.rights.accessRights | open access | es_ES |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.11.032 | |
| dc.type.hasVersion | AM | es_ES |