Prospective patient and physician preferences for stimulation or no stimulation in IVF

References

• Asch D. A., Jedrziewski M. K., Christakis N. A. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1997; 50: 1129–1136
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beerendonk C. C., Dop van P. A., Braat D. D., Merkus J. M. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: facts and fallacies. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 1998; 53: 439–449
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bergh T., Ericson A., Hillensjö T., Nygren K. G., Wennerholm U. B. Deliveries and children born after in vitro fertilization in Sweden 1982 – 95: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Nov 6, 1999; 354(9190)1579–1585
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centers for disease control and prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, The National Infertility Association, 2000 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates, National summary and fertility clinic reports. 2002
   Google Scholar
• College van Geneesheren Reproductieve Geneeskunde, Belgian Register for Assisted Procreation, Verslag 1999 – 2000
   Google Scholar
• Daya S., Gunby J., Hughes E. G., Collins J. A., Sagle M. A., Younglai E. V. Natural cycles for in vitro fertilization: cost-effectiveness analysis and factors influencing outcome. Human Reproduction 1995; 10: 1719–1724
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynakologue und Geburtshilfe, Deutsches IVF Register, Jahrbuch 2001, 2002, Lübeck
   Google Scholar
• Elster N. Less is more: the risks of multiple births. The Institute for Science, Law, and Technology Working Group on Reproductive Technology. Fertility and Sterility 2000; 74: 617–623
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eugster A, Vingerhoets A. J. J. M. Psychological aspects of in vitro fertilization: a review. Social Science & Medicine 1999; 48: 575–589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssens R. M. J., Lambalk C. B., Vermeiden J. P. W., Schats R., Schoemaker J. In vitro fertilization in a spontaneous cycle: easy, cheap and realistic. Human Reproduction 2000; 15: 314–318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman B. An embryo too many. Human Reproduction 1998; 13: 2664–2666
   Google Scholar
• Llewellyn-Thomas H. A., McGreal M. J., Thiel E. C., Fine S., Erlichman C. Patients' willingness to enter clinical trial: measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation. Social Science & Medicine 1991; 32: 35–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nargund G., Waterstone J., Bland J. M., Philips Z., Parsons J., Campbell S. Cumulative conception and live birth rates in natural (unstimulated) IVF cycles. Human Reproduction 2001; 16: 259–262
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologen, data IVF centra in the Netherlands, 1996 – 2002, www.nvog.nl
   Google Scholar
• Nieuwkerk P. T., Hajenius P. J., van der Veen F., Ankum W. M., Wijker W., Bossuyt P. M. M. Systematic methotrexate therapy versus laparoscopic salpingostomy in tubal pregnancy. Part II. Patient preferences for systematic methotrexate. Fertility and Sterility 1998; 70: 518–522
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelinck M. J., Hoek A., Simons A. H. M., Heineman M. J. Efficacy of the natural cycle IVF: a review of the literature. Human Reproduction Update 2002; 8: 129–139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinborg A., Loft A., Andersen A. N. Neonatal outcome in a Danish national cohort of 8602 children born after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection: the role of twin pregnancy. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2004a; 83: 1071–1078
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinborg A., Loft A., Rasmussen S., Schmidt L., Langhoff-Roos J., Greisen G., Andersen A. N. Neonatal outcome in a Danish national cohort of 3438 IVF/ICSI and 10 362 non-IVF/ICSI twins born between 1995 and 2000. Human Reproduction 2004b; 19: 435–441
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilization. Social Science & Medicine 1999; 48: 535–546
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma V., Riddle B. A., Mason J., Pampiglione J., Campell S. An analysis of factor influencing the establishment of a clinical pregnancy in an ultrasound-based ambulatory in vitro fertilization program. Fertility and Sterility 1988; 49: 468–478
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinhoven P. H., Ormel J., Sloekers P. A., Kempen G. I., Speckens A. E., Van Hemert A. M. A validation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. Psychological Medicine 1997; 27: 363–370
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steures P., Berkhout J. C., Hompes P. G., van der Steeg J. W., Bossuyt P. M., van der Veen F., Habbema J. D., Eijkemans M. J., Mol B. W. Patients' preferences in deciding between intrauterine insemination and expectant management. Human Reproduction 2005; 20: 752–755
   Google Scholar
• Templeton A., Morris J. K., Parslow W. Factors that affect outcome of in vitro fertilisation treatment. The Lancet Nov 23, 1996; 348(9039)1402–1406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar