Home > Journals > Panminerva Medica > Past Issues > Articles online first > Panminerva Medica 2022 Feb 18



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



Panminerva Medica 2022 Feb 18

DOI: 10.23736/S0031-0808.22.04686-9


language: English

Taking a closer look at the key performance indicators in an assisted reproductive technology laboratory: a guide for reproductive professionals

Kelly A. WIRKA 1, Israel M. ROSAS 2, Christina ANAGNOSTOPOULOU 3, Neha SINGH 4, Madhumitha MANOHARAN 5, Bruna BARROS 6, Sofia I. LEONARDI DIAZ 7, Nivita GUGNANI 8, 9, Dimple DESAI 10, Florence BOITRELLE 11, 12, Hassan N. SALLAM 13, Ashok AGARWAL 14

1 Fertility & Endocrinology, Medical Affairs, EMD Serono, USA; 2 Citmer Reproductive Medicine, IVF LAB, Mexico City, Mexico; 3 IVF Clinic “Akeso-Embryo ART”, Athens, Greece; 4 NOVA IVF, Gorakhpur, India; 5 AlphaLife Fertility and Women's Center, Salem, India; 6 Huntington Medicina Reprodutiva, São Paulo, Brazil; 7 Hospital Publico Materno Infantil, Salta, Argentina; 8 Milann-The Fertility Centre, Delhi, India; 9 All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India; 10 Dpu IVF and Endoscopy Center, Dr. D.Y. Patil Hospital and Research Center, Pune, India; 11 Reproductive Biology, Fertility Preservation, Andrology, CECOS, Poissy Hospital, Poissy, France; 12 Department of Biology, Reproduction, Epigenetics, Environment and Development, Paris Saclay University, UVSQ, INRAE, BREED, Jouy-en-Josas, France; 13 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Alexandria University Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria, Egypt; 14 American Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA


Over the years, laboratories performing assisted reproductive technologies have been tasked with a growing number of procedures of increased complexity. New technologies, including hardware and software innovations, are constantly evolving, and being evaluated as potential tools to improve laboratory and clinical outcomes. The ART laboratory plays a crucial role in fertility treatments and, therefore, it is often under intense scrutiny with regards to performance and success rates. As the reproductive medicine field strives to deliver improved clinical outcomes to patients, IVF clinics - including the ART laboratories - are required to monitor their performance and seek improvement in the many different aspects related to patient care. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and benchmarking are important tools to support performance monitoring and quality improvement processes. The concept and potential benefits of KPI utilization is generally accepted. However, its adoption poses some challenges that may discourage ART practices from pursuing it as part of their Quality Management Systems (QMS). Properly selecting and using KPIs will allow laboratories to successfully manage their performance and set up realistic target goals to consistently deliver high rates. Existing literature can guide reproductive medicine professionals to embark on their journey to successfully select, implement, and manage KPI and benchmarking as part of their ART programs. This article discusses the concept and essentials of KPI and benchmarking applied to the ART laboratory, as well as potential challenges and how to overcome them.

KEY WORDS: Key performance indicator; ART, oocyte, sperm, IVF

top of page