Everything the Spanish National Activity Registry publishes about Clínica EasyFIV between 2013 and 2022: 8 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
2016
271
2017
168
2018
173
2019
130
2020
177
2021
206
2022
188
Transfers recorded per year — Egg donationSee this chart’s data
Transfers recorded per year — Egg donation
Year
Value
2016
129
2017
102
2018
61
2019
100
2020
84
2021
54
2022
65
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
2016
23.2 – 63.7%
4.1 – 26.7%
2017
16.4 – 61.4%
2.7 – 39.4%
2018
0 – 35.8%
19.2 – 59.1%
2019
7.9 – 64.8%
0 – 42.9%
2020
18.5 – 61.5%
0 – 40.2%
2021
7.7 – 42.3%
8.9 – 36.8%
2022
0 – 35%
8.6 – 35.8%
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
2016
15.9 – 41.2%
8.4 – 34.9%
2017
11.8 – 45.3%
18.8 – 55.3%
2018
23.9 – 55%
2.7 – 25.9%
2019
5.6 – 42%
0 – 33.9%
2020
18.6 – 46.6%
0 – 23.1%
2021
10.4 – 41.2%
7.6 – 36.2%
2022
3.5 – 31%
0 – 18.4%
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
2016
2 – 21.2%
0.6 – 16.8%
2017
5.2 – 32.3%
10.4 – 41.2%
2018
0.9 – 22%
0 – 25.7%
2019
2.6 – 25.2%
5.9 – 35.4%
2020
8.3 – 31.7%
0 – 18.4%
2021
4.1 – 26.7%
3.4 – 23.3%
2022
2.6 – 25.2%
2.3 – 22.7%
Egg donation · Under 35
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
See this chart’s data
Egg donation · Under 35
Year
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
2016
10 – 90%
—
2017
0 – 55%
—
2018
0 – 100%
—
2021
—
100 – 100%
2022
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
2016
13.8 – 61.2%
0 – 71.1%
2017
35.2 – 92.1%
0 – 46.5%
2019
0 – 31.6%
12 – 76.9%
2020
0 – 31.6%
6.7 – 60%
2021
1 – 99%
2.5 – 64.1%
2022
0 – 55.1%
—
Egg donation · Over 40
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
See this chart’s data
Egg donation · Over 40
Year
Fresh embryos
Frozen embryos
2016
21.6 – 49.5%
1.1 – 24.7%
2017
25.1 – 52.4%
23.3 – 61.3%
2018
30.8 – 66%
15.3 – 54.2%
2019
12.7 – 41.3%
17 – 44.9%
2020
22.2 – 59.3%
10.9 – 39.1%
2021
31.9 – 80.6%
7.7 – 42.3%
2022
28.4 – 67.6%
1 – 23.3%
AIH — artificial insemination (partner’s sperm) · Under 40See this chart’s data
AIH — artificial insemination (partner’s sperm) · Under 40
Year
Under 40
2013
0 – 35.8%
AIH — artificial insemination (partner’s sperm) · Under 35See this chart’s data
AIH — artificial insemination (partner’s sperm) · Under 35
Year
Under 35
2020
0 – 100%
AIH — artificial insemination (partner’s sperm) · Between 35 and 39See this chart’s data
AIH — artificial insemination (partner’s sperm) · Between 35 and 39
Year
Between 35 and 39
2018
0 – 35.4%
2022
100 – 100%
AID — artificial insemination (donor sperm) · Under 40See this chart’s data
AID — artificial insemination (donor sperm) · Under 40
Year
Under 40
2013
0 – 42.9%
AID — artificial insemination (donor sperm) · Under 35See this chart’s data
AID — artificial insemination (donor sperm) · Under 35
Year
Under 35
2016
12 – 76.9%
2019
0 – 40.2%
2021
0 – 86.7%
2022
100 – 100%
AID — artificial insemination (donor sperm) · Between 35 and 39See this chart’s data
AID — artificial insemination (donor sperm) · Between 35 and 39
Year
Between 35 and 39
2019
0 – 86.7%
2020
0 – 100%
2021
0 – 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
2013
Clínica EasyFIV
No data
No data
No data
0 – 35.8%
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2013-Registro SEF
2014
No data
2015
No data
2016
Clínica EasyFIV
100-500
400
23.2 – 63.7%
12 – 76.9%
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2016-Registro SEF
2017
Clínica EasyFIV
100-500
270
16.4 – 61.4%
No data
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2017-Registro SEF
2018
Clínica EasyFIV
100-500
234
0 – 35.8%
0 – 35.4%
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2018-Registro SEF
2019
Clínica EasyFIV
No data
230
7.9 – 64.8%
0 – 40.2%
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2019-Registro SEF
2020
Clínica EasyFIV
100-500
261
18.5 – 61.5%
0 – 100%
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2020-Registro SEF
2021
Clínica EasyFIV
100-500
260
7.7 – 42.3%
0 – 86.7%
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2021-Registro SEF
2022
Clínica EasyFIV
100-500
253
0 – 35%
100 – 100%
Registro Nacional de Actividad 2022-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.