Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
E Clare Marshall MRC
Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge CB2 2SR
Correspondence to:
Dr Spiegelhalter david.spiegelhalter{at}mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk
Objective: To determine to what extent institutions
carrying out in vitro fertilisation can reasonably be ranked according
to their live birth rates.
Design: Retrospective analysis of prospectively
collected data on live birth rate after in vitro fertilisation.
Setting: 52 clinics in the United Kingdom carrying
out in vitro fertilisation over the period April 1994 to March 1995.
Main outcome measure: Estimated adjusted live birth
rate for each clinic; their rank and its associated uncertainty.
Results: There were substantial and significant
differences between the live birth rates of the clinics. There was
great uncertainty, however, concerning the true ranks, particularly for
the smaller clinics. Only one clinic could be confidently ranked in the
bottom quarter according to this measure of performance. Many centres
had substantial changes in rank between years, even though their live
birth rate did not change significantly.
Conclusions: Even when there are substantial
differences between institutions, ranks are extremely unreliable
statistical summaries of performance and change in performance,
particularly for smaller institutions. Any performance indicator should
always be associated with a measure of sampling
variability.
Key messages
© BMJ 1998