[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
December 21, 2011

Assisted Reproductive Technology Program Reporting—Reply

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliation: Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island (Eli_Adashi@brown.edu).

JAMA. 2011;306(23):2564-2565. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1844

In Reply: Drs Kissin, Jamieson, and Barfield highlight new initiatives undertaken by the NASS.1 The proposed implementation of universal prospective reporting, a welcome addition, stands to improve the quality of ART cycle cancellation data. The credibility of such an as-you-go paradigm would be enhanced by coupling to a rigorous verification protocol. Equally welcome is the proposed accelerated release of clinic-specific (but not aggregated national) success rates. These patient-friendly measures will enhance the timeliness and the quality of the data released and harmonize the reporting practices of the NASS with those of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology.2 The NASS initiative to reach out to nonreporting ART clinics in the hope of minimizing residual national data gaps is also important.3 The success of the latter effort will depend not only on the effective identification of all nonreporting ART clinics but also on greater insight into the considerations that drive the nonreporting decisions of the clinics in question.