Objective: This study aimed to characterize a validated model for predicting oocyte retrieval in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and to construct model-based nomograms for assistance in clinical decision-making regarding the gonadotropin protocol and dose. Methods: This observational, retrospective, cohort study included 636 women with primary unexplained infertility and a normal menstrual cycle who were attempting assisted reproductive therapy for the first time. The enrolled women were split into an index group (n=497) for model building and a validation group (n=139). The primary outcome was absolute oocyte count. The dose-response relationship was tested using modified Poisson, negative binomial, hybrid Poisson-Emax, and linear models. The validation group was similarly analyzed, and its results were compared to that of the index group. Results: The Poisson model with the log-link function demonstrated superior predictive performance and precision (Akaike information criterion, 2,704; λ=8.27; relative standard error (λ)=2.02%). The covariate analysis included women’s age (p<0.001), antral follicle count (p<0.001), basal follicle-stimulating hormone level (p<0.001), gonadotropin dose (p=0.042), and protocol type (p=0.002 and p<0.001 for short and antagonist protocols, respectively). The estimates from 500 bootstrap samples were close to those of the original model. The validation group (n=139) showed model assessment metrics comparable to the index model. Based on the fitted model, a static nomogram was built to improve visualization. In addition, a dynamic electronic tool was created for convenience of use. Conclusion Based on our validated model, nomograms were constructed to help clinicians individualize the stimulation protocol and gonadotropin doses in COS cycles.

Objective: This study aimed to characterize a validated model for predicting oocyte retrieval in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and to construct model-based nomograms for assistance in clinical decision-making regarding the gonadotropin protocol and dose. Methods: This observational, retrospective, cohort study included 636 women with primary unexplained infertility and a normal menstrual cycle who were attempting assisted reproductive therapy for the first time. The enrolled women were split into an index group (n=497) for model building and a validation group (n=139). The primary outcome was absolute oocyte count. The dose-response relationship was tested using modified Poisson, negative binomial, hybrid Poisson-Emax, and linear models. The validation group was similarly analyzed, and its results were compared to that of the index group. Results: The Poisson model with the log-link function demonstrated superior predictive performance and precision (Akaike information criterion, 2,704; λ=8.27; relative standard error (λ)=2.02%). The covariate analysis included women’s age (p<0.001), antral follicle count (p<0.001), basal follicle-stimulating hormone level (p<0.001), gonadotropin dose (p=0.042), and protocol type (p=0.002 and p<0.001 for short and antagonist protocols, respectively). The estimates from 500 bootstrap samples were close to those of the original model. The validation group (n=139) showed model assessment metrics comparable to the index model. Based on the fitted model, a static nomogram was built to improve visualization. In addition, a dynamic electronic tool was created for convenience of use. Conclusion Based on our validated model, nomograms were constructed to help clinicians individualize the stimulation protocol and gonadotropin doses in COS cycles.

Background: Smoking is a preventable cause of chronic morbidity. Patient empowerment is a process through which people establish greater control over their health-related decisions and actions. To assess the effect of patient empowerment versus health education on the nicotine dependence score and progress of patients under different stages of smoking cessation. Methods: This was a single-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial that included 76 smokers attending family medicine clinics. Participants were divided into two groups: empowerment and health education groups. Their nicotine-dependence score and smoking cessation stage were identified. All study participants were subjected to five health education sessions with a 3-month follow-up period. Results: The mean nicotine-dependence score decreased significantly in both groups after the intervention. This decrease was slightly higher in the empowerment group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. After the intervention, 16.7% of the health education and 30.0% of the empowerment group transitioned from stage 1 to stages 2–4 of smoking cessation, with the change being statistically significant only in the empowerment group. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of study participants who stopped smoking between the health education and empowerment groups. Conclusion Both the empowerment model and traditional health education have similar positive effects on decreasing the nicotine-dependence level. There was a significant improvement in the stage of change for patients under the empowerment model, although there was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the number of participants who stopped smoking.

Background: Smoking is a preventable cause of chronic morbidity. Patient empowerment is a process through which people establish greater control over their health-related decisions and actions. To assess the effect of patient empowerment versus health education on the nicotine dependence score and progress of patients under different stages of smoking cessation. Methods: This was a single-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial that included 76 smokers attending family medicine clinics. Participants were divided into two groups: empowerment and health education groups. Their nicotine-dependence score and smoking cessation stage were identified. All study participants were subjected to five health education sessions with a 3-month follow-up period. Results: The mean nicotine-dependence score decreased significantly in both groups after the intervention. This decrease was slightly higher in the empowerment group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. After the intervention, 16.7% of the health education and 30.0% of the empowerment group transitioned from stage 1 to stages 2–4 of smoking cessation, with the change being statistically significant only in the empowerment group. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of study participants who stopped smoking between the health education and empowerment groups. Conclusion Both the empowerment model and traditional health education have similar positive effects on decreasing the nicotine-dependence level. There was a significant improvement in the stage of change for patients under the empowerment model, although there was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the number of participants who stopped smoking.