Prediction of metaphase II oocytes according to different levels of serum AMH in poor responders using the antagonist protocol during ICSI: a cohort study

References

• Gearhart J, Coutifaris C. In vitro fertilization, the Nobel Prize, and human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;8(1):12–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motawi TMK, Rizk SM, Maurice NW, et al. The role of gene polymorphisms and AMH level in prediction of poor ovarian response in Egyptian women undergoing IVF procedure. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(12):1659–1666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maged AM, Nada AN, Abohamila F, et al. Delayed start versus conventional GnRH antagonist protocol in poor responders pretreated with estradiol in luteal phase: a randomized controlled trial reproductive sciences. Reprod Sci. 2015;22(12):1627–1631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks DJ, Te Velde ER, Loomann CW, et al. Expected poor ovarian response in predicting cumulative pregnancy rates: a powerful tool. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(5):727–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubaldi F, Vaiarelli A, D’Anna R, et al. Management of poor responders in IVF: is there anything new? Bio Med Res Int. 2014;2014:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Rubio C, Mercader A, Alama P, et al. Prospective cohort study in high responder oocyte donors using two hormonal stimulation protocols: impact on embryo aneuploidy and development. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(9):2290–2297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verberg MF, Macklon NS, Nargund G, et al. Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;15(1):13–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baart EB, Martini E, Eijkemans JM, et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(4):980–988.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker VL. Mild ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: one perspective from the USA. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(2):197–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lensen SF, Wilkinson J, Leijdekkers JA, et al. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:CD012693.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alebić1 MŠ, Stojanović N, Dewailly D. Discordance between serum anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations and antral follicle counts: not only technical issues. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Marca La A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(2):113–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maged AM, Rashwan H, AbdelAziz S, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the effect of endometrial injury on implantation and clinical pregnancy rates during the first ICSI cycle. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;140(2):211–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brinsden PR. A text book of in vitro fertilization and assisted reproduction: the Bourn Hall guide to clinical and laboratory practice. 3rd ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2005. p. 287–307.
   Google Scholar
• Maged AM, Rashwan H, Mahmoud M, et al. Effect of prolonged GnRH agonist downregulation on ICSI outcome in patients with endometriomas of less than 5 cm: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Sci. 2018;25(10):1509–1514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang EM, Han JE, Won HJ, et al. Effect of estrogen priming through luteal phase and stimulation phase in poor responders in in-vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(3):225–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva JBd, Panaino TR, Tamm MA, et al. Prediction of metaphase II oocytes according to different serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels in antagonist ICSI cycles. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2016;20(4):222–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–1624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Ezcurra D. Hormonal, functional and genetic biomarkers in controlled ovarian stimulation: tools for matching patients and protocols. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10(1):9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reichman DE, Goldschlag D, Rosenwaks Z. Value of antimüllerian hormone as a prognostic indication of in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(4):1012–1018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming R, Seifer DB, Frattarelli JL, et al. Assessing ovarian response: antral follicle count versus anti-Müllerian hormone. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31(4):486–496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson SM, Yates RW, Lyall H, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone-based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod. 2008;24(4):867–875.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacheco A, Cruz M, Iglesias C, et al. Very low anti-müllerian hormone concentrations are not an independent predictor of embryo quality and pregnancy rate. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;37(1):113–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar