A revised prediction model for natural conception Alexandra J. Bensdorp, Jan Willem van der Steeg, Pieternel Steures, J. Dik F. Habbema, Peter G.A. Hompes, Patrick M.M. Bossuyt, Fulco van der Veen, Ben W.J. Mol, Marinus J.C. Eijkemans Y.M. van Kasteren, P.F.M. van der Heijden, W.A. Schöls, M.H. Mochtar, G.L.M. Lips, J. Dawson, H.R. Verhoeve, S. Milosavljevic, P.G.A. Hompes, L.J. van Dam, A.V. Sluijmer, H.E. Bobeck, R.E. Bernardus, M.C.S. Vermeer, J.P. Dörr, P.J.Q. van der Linden, H.J.M. Roelofs, J.M. Burggraaff, G.J.E. Oosterhuis, M.H. Schouwink, P.X.J.M. Bouckaert, F.M.C. Delemarre, C.J.C.M. Hamilton, M. van Hoven, M.H. Emanuel, C.N.M. Renckens, J.A. Land, J.H. Schagen-Van Leeuwen, J.A.M. Kremer, C. van Katwijk, M.H.A. van Hooff, H.J.H.M. Van Dessel, F.J.M. Broekmans, H.J.L.A. Ruis, C.A.M. Koks, P. Bourdrez, W.W.J. Riedijk, B.J. Cohlen Alexandra J. Bensdorp, Jan Willem van der Steeg, Pieternel Steures, J. Dik F. Habbema, Peter G.A. Hompes, Patrick M.M. Bossuyt, Fulco van der Veen, Ben W.J. Mol, Marinus J.C. Eijkemans Y.M. van Kasteren, P.F.M. van der Heijden, W.A. Schöls, M.H. Mochtar, G.L.M. Lips, J. Dawson, H.R. Verhoeve, S. Milosavljevic, P.G.A. Hompes, L.J. van Dam, A.V. Sluijmer, H.E. Bobeck, R.E. Bernardus, M.C.S. Vermeer, J.P. Dörr, P.J.Q. van der Linden, H.J.M. Roelofs, J.M. Burggraaff, G.J.E. Oosterhuis, M.H. Schouwink, P.X.J.M. Bouckaert, F.M.C. Delemarre, C.J.C.M. Hamilton, M. van Hoven, M.H. Emanuel, C.N.M. Renckens, J.A. Land, J.H. Schagen-Van Leeuwen, J.A.M. Kremer, C. van Katwijk, M.H.A. van Hooff, H.J.H.M. Van Dessel, F.J.M. Broekmans, H.J.L.A. Ruis, C.A.M. Koks, P. Bourdrez, W.W.J. Riedijk, B.J. Cohlen  Reproductive BioMedicine Online  Volume 34, Issue 6, Pages 619-626 (June 2017) DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.03.014 Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Score chart for daily practice. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2017 34, 619-626DOI: (10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.03.014) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 (a) Calibration curves of the Hunault model; (b) the revised model. Calibration of the models was carried out by assigning the calculated 1-year probabilities of natural conception leading to ongoing pregnancy for each included couple to one of 10 categories, based on deciles, and comparing the average probability in each category to the 1-year Kaplan–Meier estimate. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2017 34, 619-626DOI: (10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.03.014) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Reclassification of the revised model versus the Hunault model based on 1-year predicted chances of ongoing pregnancy. Kaplan–Meier estimates of the real 1-year chance of ongoing pregnancy, per group. Reclassification was calculated in the cohort that the Hunault model was externally validated upon. Filled points, ongoing pregnant; unfilled points, not ongoing pregnant. KM, Kaplan–Meier. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2017 34, 619-626DOI: (10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.03.014) Copyright © 2017 Terms and Conditions