CENTRO REPROD.HUM, GINE C.YOBST.DR.NADAL, year by year
Everything the Spanish National Activity Registry publishes about CENTRO REPROD.HUM, GINE C.YOBST.DR.NADAL between 2009 and 2017: 9 years with data. Each year carries its own attribution, because each year is a separate publication of the registry.
Volume first
Activity comes before results on purpose: a high percentage over few cycles does not mean what the same percentage over many cycles means. The registry publishes cycles as bands and that is how we show them, never reduced to a single figure; transfers are an exact count.
Transfers recorded per year — IVF/ICSI with own oocytesSee this chart’s data
Transfers recorded per year — IVF/ICSI with own oocytes
Year
Value
2009
172
2010
157
2011
177
2012
154
2013
119
2014
93
2015
97
2016
75
2017
41
Transfers recorded per year — Egg donationSee this chart’s data
Transfers recorded per year — Egg donation
Year
Value
2009
75
2010
67
2011
62
2012
132
2013
99
2014
94
2015
54
2016
45
2017
58
Results, year by year
Each band is the interval the registry published that year: the floor and the ceiling of the estimate, not a point. There is no line joining the years, and that is deliberate — joining the centres of successive intervals would assert a trend the data does not support.
IVF/ICSI with own oocytes · Under 35
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
See this chart’s data
IVF/ICSI with own oocytes · Under 35
Year
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
2009
23.2 – 42.1%
32.7 – 52.6%
2010
13 – 30.2%
19.9 – 38.9%
2011
23.9 – 44.4%
37.8 – 59.4%
2012
25.6 – 57.8%
20.5 – 46.4%
2013
25.7 – 63.2%
29.2 – 60%
2014
7.8 – 51.1%
6 – 44%
2015
10.6 – 60.8%
11.6 – 55.1%
2016
10 – 90%
4.3 – 49%
2017
19 – 81%
12 – 76.9%
IVF/ICSI with own oocytes · Between 35 and 39
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
See this chart’s data
IVF/ICSI with own oocytes · Between 35 and 39
Year
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
2009
10 – 25.1%
15.9 – 33%
2010
21 – 40.3%
29.2 – 49.6%
2011
20.9 – 36.7%
27.7 – 44.6%
2012
21.2 – 50.2%
18.9 – 42%
2013
14.2 – 47.9%
19.4 – 47.3%
2014
15.3 – 54.2%
0 – 30.5%
2015
12.1 – 42.5%
0 – 37.9%
2016
8.6 – 39.7%
7.9 – 64.8%
2017
0 – 26.1%
—
IVF/ICSI with own oocytes · Over 40
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
See this chart’s data
IVF/ICSI with own oocytes · Over 40
Year
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
2009
2.6 – 25.2%
4.5 – 28.8%
2010
0 – 13.4%
0 – 13.4%
2011
9.6 – 35.4%
9.6 – 35.4%
2012
7.3 – 40.7%
6.2 – 36.6%
2013
0 – 71.1%
0 – 45.9%
2014
4.3 – 49%
—
2015
—
1 – 99%
2016
—
13.3 – 100%
Egg donation · Under 35
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
See this chart’s data
Egg donation · Under 35
Year
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
2009
0 – 30.6%
26.3 – 70.2%
2010
64.6 – 100%
100 – 100%
2011
12 – 76.9%
53.9 – 100%
2012
0 – 0%
0 – 39.4%
2013
29.6 – 90.4%
25.1 – 84%
2014
0 – 100%
0 – 67.4%
2015
100 – 100%
—
2017
100 – 100%
—
Egg donation · Between 35 and 39
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
See this chart’s data
Egg donation · Between 35 and 39
Year
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
2009
19.8 – 57.2%
42.2 – 79.7%
2010
33 – 70.7%
39.4 – 76.6%
2011
34.2 – 74.1%
60.5 – 94%
2012
46.4 – 99%
41.5 – 84.8%
2013
26.7 – 80.9%
42.4 – 88.9%
2014
0 – 55.1%
0 – 37.8%
2015
0 – 55.1%
26.7 – 80.9%
2016
0 – 55.1%
1 – 99%
2017
1 – 99%
0 – 49.4%
Egg donation · Over 40
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
See this chart’s data
Egg donation · Over 40
Year
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
2009
19.6 – 40.1%
40.7 – 63%
2010
20.8 – 45.9%
40.9 – 67.5%
2011
18 – 39.2%
44.5 – 67.7%
2012
29.9 – 59%
45.2 – 69.6%
2013
21.9 – 61.4%
36.7 – 65.6%
2014
10.7 – 52.5%
16.5 – 41.2%
2015
9.6 – 70.4%
14.1 – 55.9%
2016
43.5 – 83.7%
12 – 64.9%
2017
15.2 – 58.5%
21.9 – 61.4%
AIH — artificial insemination (partner’s sperm) · Under 35See this chart’s data
AIH — artificial insemination (partner’s sperm) · Under 35
Year
Under 35
2015
100 – 100%
AID — artificial insemination (donor sperm) · Under 40See this chart’s data
AID — artificial insemination (donor sperm) · Under 40
Year
Under 40
2014
1 – 99%
AID — artificial insemination (donor sperm) · Under 35See this chart’s data
AID — artificial insemination (donor sperm) · Under 35
Year
Under 35
2015
100 – 100%
Year-by-year table
The table is the exact and complete reading: everything in the charts, and more. Each row cites the wording the registry requires for that year.
Year
Name in the registry
Cycles started
Transfers
Pregnancy per transfer (under 35)
Pregnancy per cycle (insemination)
Attribution
2009
CENTRO MEDICO TEKNON
100-500
247
23.2 – 42.1%
No data
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2009-Registro SEF
2010
CENTRO MEDICO TEKNON
100-500
224
13 – 30.2%
No data
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2010-Registro SEF
2011
CENTRO MEDICO TEKNON
100-500
239
23.9 – 44.4%
No data
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2011-Registro SEF
2012
FIV BARCELONA
100-500
286
25.6 – 57.8%
No data
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2012-Registro SEF
2013
FIV BARCELONA
No data
218
25.7 – 63.2%
No data
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2013-Registro SEF
2014
CENTRO REPROD.HUM, GINE C.YOBST.DR.NADAL
No data
187
7.8 – 51.1%
1 – 99%
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2014-Registro SEF
2015
CENTRO REPROD.HUM, GINE C.YOBST.DR.NADAL
No data
151
10.6 – 60.8%
100 – 100%
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2015-Registro SEF
2016
CENTRO REPROD.HUM, GINE C.YOBST.DR.NADAL
No data
120
10 – 90%
No data
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2016-Registro SEF
2017
CENTRO REPROD.HUM, GINE C.YOBST.DR.NADAL
No data
99
19 – 81%
No data
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2017-Registro SEF
Gaps in the series, and how to read them
The registry’s province-by-province census returns empty for 2009 and 2010, even though the individual profiles for those years do exist and have been recovered one by one. A centre missing from a given year means the registry publishes no profile for it that year — not that it closed.
The registry’s template changed schema in 2014 and again in 2015: up to 2013, cycles, implantation and transfers are published without separating fresh from frozen embryos, and insemination is published for a single age band (“under 40”). That is why some years carry fewer series than others: it is what the source published, not a missing figure.
And most important: a change from one year to the next is not, on its own, an improvement or a decline. The patient mix changes, selection criteria change and, at small volumes, chance changes too. Wide intervals are precisely the signal that the exact number cannot be trusted.