Fertility

Reading the CDC's ART Success Rates Report

Save

Percentages in the CDC report look simple and are not. The same cycle can produce very different success rates depending on whether the denominator is a started cycle, an embryo transfer, or a patient — and the national totals describe one reporting year, not a running tally. This is a plain-language guide to reading each number for what it means, and what it cannot tell you about a specific clinic.

Last updated: July 2026

Talk to a clinician

Gale can help you find a clinician in your state and request a visit.

Find care →

What is the CDC ART Success Rates report?

It is the federal government's official record of assisted reproductive technology outcomes in the United States. The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 requires every clinic performing ART to report every cycle it starts, and the CDC compiles and publishes the results — both national totals and a report card for each individual clinic 1.

ART, or assisted reproductive technology, covers procedures in which eggs and embryos are handled in a lab, most commonly IVF. You reach the data through the CDC's ART Success Rates pages. For reporting year 2022 and onward, the national summary is published as an interactive online dashboard rather than a single printed report 2, while clinic-specific reports remain available to look up one clinic at a time.

What the national numbers actually say

The headline totals are large and worth seeing in context. For cycles started in 2021, roughly 238,126 patients underwent about 413,776 ART cycles at 453 reporting clinics, resulting in 91,906 live births 3. In the more recent 2022 data, 251,542 patients underwent 435,426 cycles at 457 clinics, yielding 94,039 live-birth deliveries 2.

These national figures are noncumulative — each one describes a single reporting year, not a person's lifetime odds 4. That distinction matters. A year's snapshot of hundreds of thousands of cycles tells you the scale of ART and the broad national outcome, but it is not the number a specific patient should expect from one attempt.

Why the report is always a couple of years behind

The CDC report you read today describes cycles started two or three years ago, and that lag is worth understanding. Clinics report every cycle, but a live birth can arrive a year or more after a cycle begins, and the data is then checked before publication — so the most recent complete pictures are the 2021 full report 3 and the 2022 online dashboard 2. The delay is a feature of careful verification, not a sign the data is stale.

The practical consequence is real, though. A clinic's published numbers reflect the staff, lab, and protocols it had a few years ago, not necessarily today. A program that recently changed its lab director, opened its doors, or overhauled its protocols may perform differently from its printed rate — in either direction. When a very current-looking rate appears on a clinic's own site, it is worth asking which reporting year it comes from, because the official federal figures move slowly by design.

Cycle, transfer, or patient — read the denominator

Every percentage in the report is a fraction, and the number on the bottom changes everything. The same clinic can report one live-birth rate per cycle started, a higher one per embryo transfer — because cycles that never reached transfer are removed from the bottom — and a different one per patient. The CDC's methodology defines each measure, from pregnancy to live-birth delivery to singleton versus multiple, precisely so these are not mixed up 4.

SART presents the same underlying cycles with its own set of denominators: per intended egg retrieval, per new patient, per transfer, and cumulatively across a patient's linked cycles 5. This is the denominator trap. A per-transfer figure will almost always look higher than a per-cycle figure for the same clinic, even though nothing about the care changed. When you read a number, read the phrase attached to it — per cycle, per transfer, per retrieval — before you read the percentage.

Why the report is not a clinic ranking

The CDC states plainly that its data should not be used to compare clinics, and the reasons are built into the numbers. Because the figures are noncumulative and cover one year, a small clinic's rate can swing widely on a handful of cycles 4. More importantly, a clinic's rate reflects its case mix — the ages, diagnoses, and prognoses of the patients it accepts — not just the quality of its lab.

This is the central reason clinic success rates mislead when read as a leaderboard. A program that takes on older or more complex patients, which is a genuine strength, will often show a lower headline rate than one that treats mainly favorable cases. Case mix and patient selection, not skill, can account for most of the gap. Asking what a good success rate is only makes sense once you have matched the reported patients to your own age and diagnosis.

The IVF Success Estimator gives your odds, not a clinic's

For a number that actually applies to you, the CDC offers a separate tool: the IVF Success Estimator. It takes your age, height and weight, and diagnosis and returns an individualized estimate of the chance of a live birth with IVF, for ages 20 to 50 6. It is built from national data, so it reflects the average across all reporting clinics — not any single clinic's results.

That is a feature, not a flaw. The estimator answers a question the clinic report cannot: given someone in my situation, what does the national experience suggest? It will not tell you which clinic to choose, and it is not a promise — but it is a far better starting point than a headline percentage lifted from a marketing page.

CDC and SART: two reports on the same cycles

The CDC report and SART's report describe overlapping cycles from different vantage points, and knowing the difference keeps you from double-counting. The CDC data is the federal, legally mandated collection that includes essentially all US clinics; SART's is the professional society's own registry, reported by its member clinics and often presented with more clinical breakdowns 5. Most large clinics appear in both.

When people compare SART vs CDC data, the practical takeaways are that the two use similar definitions, that timeliness and presentation differ, and that neither is a scoreboard. If you have learned to read one — the denominators, the age bands, the noncumulative caveat — you can read the other. Learning to actually read SART success-rate data alongside the CDC report is more useful than trusting any single figure from either.

Common questions

Through the CDC's ART Success Rates pages, which host both the national summary and a lookup for individual clinic reports. Since reporting year 2022, the national summary appears as an interactive online dashboard rather than a printed document. Clinic-specific reports let you view one clinic at a time. The data reflects cycles from a couple of years earlier, because reporting and verification take time.

Because each percentage has a different denominator. A rate per embryo transfer removes cycles that never reached transfer, so it looks higher than a rate per cycle started. A rate per patient counts people, not attempts. None is wrong, but they are not interchangeable. Always read the phrase attached to a percentage before comparing it to anything else.

No — the CDC states its data should not be used to rank clinics. A clinic's rate reflects the patients it treats as much as the care it gives, and one-year figures swing on small numbers. A program that accepts older or complex patients may post a lower rate while doing excellent work. Use the report to understand the field, not to choose.

A CDC tool that estimates an individual's chance of a live birth with IVF using national data, based on age, height and weight, and diagnosis, for ages 20 to 50. It reflects the national average across clinics, not any single clinic's results, and it is an estimate rather than a guarantee. It is a more personal starting point than a headline national percentage.

They overlap but are not identical. The CDC collection is federal and legally mandated, covering essentially all US clinics; SART's registry is reported by its member clinics and often shows more clinical detail. Most large clinics appear in both, using similar definitions. Neither is a scoreboard, and learning to read one makes the other readable too.

Related

Say it back

How would you explain this to someone you love?

Two or three sentences, just as you’d say it. Gale reflects back what you focused on — a mirror, not a quiz.

Talk to a clinician

Gale can help you find a clinician in your state and request a visit.

Find care →

How to keep the numbers honest

  • —A clinic that cites a single success-rate number without saying whether it is per cycle, per transfer, or per patient, or which age band it applies to
  • —A clinic presenting its CDC or SART figures as proof it is better than a named competitor — the federal data is explicitly not built for ranking
  • —A headline rate that sits far above the national range, offered with no explanation of the patient mix behind it

This article explains how to read the CDC's ART success-rate data; it is educational and not medical advice, and does not endorse or rank any clinic. National and clinic figures describe past reporting years and cannot predict an individual outcome. Discuss your own prognosis with a qualified reproductive specialist.

References

  1. 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2024). ART Success Rates. CDC Division of Reproductive Health. linkThe Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 mandates that the federal government collect and publish national and clinic-level ART success-rate data, and the CDC's ART Success Rates pages are where patients find it.
  2. 2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2024). National ART Summary (2022 data dashboard). CDC Division of Reproductive Health. linkFor reporting year 2022, 251,542 unique patients underwent 435,426 ART cycles at 457 clinics, yielding 94,039 live-birth deliveries, and the national summary from 2022 onward is published as an online dashboard.
  3. 3.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2023). 2021 Assisted Reproductive Technology: Fertility Clinic and National Summary Report. CDC / US Department of Health and Human Services. linkFor cycles started in 2021, approximately 238,126 patients underwent 413,776 ART cycles at 453 reporting clinics, resulting in 91,906 live births, and these national figures are noncumulative and based only on that reporting year.
  4. 4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2024). NASS Technical Notes. CDC National ART Surveillance System. linkThe CDC's National ART Surveillance System methodology defines how cycles are counted and how success measures — pregnancy, live-birth delivery, singleton versus multiple — are constructed, and explains why national figures are noncumulative and swing on small numbers.
  5. 5.Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) (2024). National Summary Report (SART CORS Online). Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. link ✓SART reports IVF outcomes by patient age band and by cycle, using denominators of per intended retrieval, per new patient, per transfer, and cumulative, and is a member-clinic registry distinct from the federal CDC collection.
  6. 6.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2024). IVF Success Estimator. CDC Division of Reproductive Health. linkThe CDC's IVF Success Estimator returns an individualized live-birth estimate from national data based on age, height and weight, and diagnosis, applies to ages 20 to 50, and reflects national averages rather than any single clinic's results.

6 sources, numbered by first appearance. General health information, not medical advice. AI-assisted editorial content — citations link their sources. Editorial policy

← Back to the health library