Attitudes towards and management of single embryo transfer among Nordic IVF doctors

References

• Nyboe-Andersen A, Goossens V, Gianaroli L, Felderbaum R, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2003. Results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22: 1513–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assisted Reproductive Technology in the United States. 2000 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:207–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergh C. Single embryo transfer: a mini-review. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20: 323–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Montfoort AP, Dumoulin JC, Land JA, Coonen E, Derhaag JG, Evers JL. Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) policy in the first three IVF/ICSI treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20: 433–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saldeen P, Sundström P. Would legislation imposing single embryo transfer be a feasible way to reduce the rate of multiple pregnancies after IVF treatment?. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20: 4–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veleva Z, Vilska S, Hyden-Granskog C, Tiitinen A, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen H. Elective single embryo transfer in women aged 36–39 years. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21: 2098–102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjö T, Jablanowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in-vitro fertilization. New Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 2392–402
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Montfoort AP, Fiddelers AA, Janssen JM, Derhaag JG, Dirksen CD, Dunselman GA, et al. In unselected patients, elective single embryo transfer prevents all multiples, but results in significantly lower pregnancy rates compared with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21: 338–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Van Landuyt L, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354: 1139–46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heijnen EMEW, Eijkemans MJC, De Klerk C, Polinder S, Beckers NGM, Klinkert ER, et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2007; 369: 743–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinborg A, Loft A, Schmidt L, Nyboe Andersen A. Attitudes of IVF/ICSI-twin mothers towards twins and single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2003; 18: 621–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray S, Shetty A, Rattray A, Taylor V, Bhattacharya S. A randomized comparison of alternative methods of information provision on the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19: 911–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergh T, Ericson A, Hillensjö T, Nygren K-G, Wennerholm U-B. Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilisation in Sweden 1982–95: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 1999; 354: 1579–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Källen B, Finnström O, Nygren K-G, Olausson PO. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden. Infant outcome after different fertilization methods. Fertil Steril. 2005; 84: 611–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Källen B, Finnström O, Nygren K-G, Olausson PO. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden. Child morbidity including cancer risk. Fertil Steril. 2005; 84: 605–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlström PO, Bergh C. Reducing the number of embryos transferred in Sweden – impact on delivery and multiple birth rates. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22: 2202–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain T, Missmer SA, Hornstein MD. Trends in embryo transfer practice and in outcomes of the use of assisted reproductive technologies in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350: 1639–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiitinen A, Hyden-Granskog C, Gissler M. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: The value of cryopreservation on cumulative pregnancy rates per single oocyte retrieval should not be forgotten. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19: 2439–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Templeton A, Morris JK. Reducing the risk of multiple births by transfer of two embryos after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 1998; 339: 573–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wennerholm UB, Bergh C. Outcome of IVF pregnancies. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2004; 15: 27–57
   Google Scholar
• Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DA, Donker D, Keirse MJ. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ. 2004; 328: 261–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjellberg AT, Carlsson P, Bergh C. Randomized single versus double embryo transfer: obstetric and paediatric outcome and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21: 210–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiitinen A, Halttunen M, Harrki P, Vuoristo P, Hydén-Granskog C. Elective single embryo transfer: the value of cryopreservation. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16: 1140–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundin K, Bergh C. Cumulative impact of adding frozen-thawed cycles to single versus double fresh embryo transfers. RBM online. 2007; 15: 742–48
   Google Scholar