We are very proud of the Success Rates which we have achieved. Between 1994 and July 2014 our embryology was provided by The Bridge Centre and between July 2014 and March 2015 we used London Women's Clinic. Our results were submitted to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and these validated results are available by clicking the links in the download section of this website. Since April 2015 we have been working with King's College Hospital in Denmark Hill and our most recent results have been excellent. Please click here to see our very latest clinical pregnancy results
Success rates for IVF and ICSI treatment can be very difficult to interpret as no two centres will treat exactly the same cohort of patients. Some centres will specialise in treating difficult patients which would tend to reduce their success rates. Other centres may treat more straightforward cases which would tend to improve their success rates. Therefore, although the published success rates of a centre are important it is necessary to interpret any results carefully..
Our success rates for IUI are reported directly to the HFEA on an annual basis and are in line with national figures. You can see more information about this by clicking here. It is important to be be aware that because our IUI cycle numbers are few it is very difficult to compare our results with other centres.
Important advice from the HFEA regarding success rates
Because there is a wide variation in the way centres publish their success rates the HFEA have issued a set of guidelines to which all units should adhere.
This advice was issued in May 2011 in the form of a letter from the chair of the HFEA (Ref CH(11)02) and the salient information that centres should follow is reproduced below.
- The data should be less than three years old
- The live birth rate per treatment cycle is provided. The website should not highlight a high success rate which applies only to a small, selected group of patients
- The data are broken down by maternal age, and if appropriate, the treatment type
- The website provides raw numbers, rather than percentages (this would particularly apply to centres doing, for example, fewer than 50 cycles)
- The website provides the national rate and like for like comparisons (the same year, maternal age, treatment type, etc)
- The centre's published success rates data make reference to the HFEA as the source of national information.
- The website must state clearly that success rates have limitations as the basis for comparison or personal choice: centres should include a link to the HFEA's advice on success rates
- Where the website refers to comparative costs, it should indicate what the likely, overall cost for a typical cycle would be, based on actual costs for recent patients, not individual items in tariffs.