[Pos_thoughts]

Hi,

I spent some time looking at the SART data. You really have to take a look at all the numbers to get an idea of what is really going on.

Just to give an example, I compared CCRM which is number 8 in the 38-40 age group vs Reproductive Medicine Association of Penn that is number 1 for the same age group with a 64.7% compared to CCRM's 44.4%. At first glance it looks like CCRM is behind, however if you look at the details in the report you can see first that CCRM did 131 cycles compared to 22 from RMAP. Second if you look at the full report you see that the Diagnosis Frequency of diminished ovarian reserve for CCRM is 41% compared to 1% for RMAP. That is a huge difference.

I also thought it was interesting to see that CCRM took on a higher percentage of people with diminished ovarian reserve in 2009 compared to 2008 (41% vs 36%).

Also, I see they have this (Reliability Range). For CCRM the range is (33.5-50.4) while RMAP it is (29.1-70.9). The range seems smaller for CCRM which implies to me that RMAPs numbers are not as reliable. I may not be reading this correctly.

Anyway, I was very concerned when I read the post but as I dug deeper I felt better and better. I did also put a request into CCRM for a response on the SART data.
Just thought I would share what I found when I investigated.

One thing I know is that with CCRM I have seen a huge change compared to what I experienced from my local doctor. I still feel just as comfortable with my decision as I did before I saw the SART numbers. And I have never had the support of such a helpful online community.