The probability of successful IVF outcome after poor ovarian response

References

• Bancsi LF, Huijs AH, den Ouden CT, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Blankenstein MA, et al. Basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels are of limited value in predicting ongoing pregnancy rate after in vitro-fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2000; 73: 552–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng EH, Tang OS, Ho PC. The significance of the number of antral follicles prior to stimulation in predicting ovarian response in an IVF programme. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15: 1937–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Eijkemans MJ, de Jong FH, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Predictors of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2002; 77: 328–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erdem M, Erdem A, Gursoy R, Biberoglu K. Comparison of basal and clomiphene citrate induced FSH and inhibin B, ovairan volume and antral follicle counts as ovarian reserve tests and predictors of poor ovarian response in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004; 21: 37–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks DJ, Ben-Willem JM, Bancsi LF, te Velde SR, Broekmans FJ. Antral follicle count in the prediction of poor ovarian response and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis and comparison with basal follicle-stimulating hormone level. Fertil Steril. 2005; 83: 291–301
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penarrrubia J, Fabregues F, Manau D, Creus M, Casals G, Casamitjana R, et al. Basal and stimulation day 5 anti-Mullerian hormone serum concentrations as predictors of ovarian response and pregnancy in assisted reproductive technology cycles stimulated with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist-gonadotrophin treatment. Hum Reprod. 2005; 30: 915–22
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vladimirov IK, Tacheva DM, Kalinov KB, Ivanova AV, Blagoeva VD. Prognostic value of some ovarian reserve tests in poor responders. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005; 272: 74–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kailasam C, Keay SD, Wilson P, Ford WC, Jenkins JM. Defining poor ovarian response during IVF cycles, in women <40 years, and its relationship with treatment. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19: 1544–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB. Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive technique. Fertil Steril. 2000; 73: 667–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarlatzis BC, Zepiridis L, Grimbizis G, Bontis J. Clinical management of low ovarian response to stimulation for IVF: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2003; 9: 61–73
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biljan MM, Buckett WM, Dean N, Phillips SJ, Tan SL. The outcome of IVF-embryo transfer treatment in patients who develop three follicles or less. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15: 2140–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Check JH, Nazari P, Check ML, Choe JK, Liss JR. Prognosis following in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in patients with elevated day 2 or 3 serum follicle stimulation hormone (FSH) is better in younger vs. older patients. Clin Exp Obest Gynecol. 2002; 29: 42–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• El-Toukhy T, Khalaf Y, Hart R, Taylor A, Braude P. Young age does not protect against the adverse effects of reduced ovarian reserve – an eight year study. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17: 1519–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saldeen P, Sundström P. Nuclear status of four-cell preembryos predicts implantation potential in in vitro fertilization treatment cycles. Fertil Steril. 2005; 84: 584–89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navot D, Rosenwaks Z, Mergalioth EJ. Prognostic assessment of female fecundity. Lancet. 1987; 332: 645–47
   Google Scholar
• Tanbo T, Dale PO, Abyholm T, Stokke KT. Follicle-stimulating hormone as a prognostic indicator in clomiphene citrate/human menopausal gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1989; 4: 647–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruess ML, Kline J, Santos R, Levin B, Timor-Tritsch I. Age and the ovarian follicle pool assessed with transvaginal ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 174: 624–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eldar-Geva T, Ben-Chetrit A, Spitz IM, Rabinovitz R, Markowitz E, Mimoni T, et al. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20: 3178–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Expected poor responders on the basis of an antral follicle count do not benefit from a higher starting dose of gonadotrophins in IVF treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20: 611–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Check JH, Choe J, Katsoff D, Summers-Chase D, Wilson C. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation adversely affects implantation following in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1999; 16: 416–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Check ML, Check JH, Wilson C, Choe J, Krotec J. Outcome of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer according to age in poor responders with elevated baseline follicle stimulation hormone using minimal or no gonadotrophin stimulation. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 21: 183–4
   Google Scholar