In vitro fertilization following natural cycles in poor responders

References

• Pellicer A, Lightman A, Diamond MP, et al. Out-come of in vitro fertilization in women with low response to ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 1987;47:812–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Rysselberge M, Puissant F, Barlow P, et al. Fertility prognosis in IVF treatment ofpatients with cancelled cycles. Hum Reprod 1989;4:663–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins JM, Davies DW, Devonport H, et al. Com-parison of 'poor' responders with 'good' responders using a standard buserelin/human menopausal gonadotrophin regime for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1991;6:918–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karande V, Gleicher N. A rational approach to the management of low responders in in-vitro fertiliza-tion. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1744–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karande VC, Jones GS, Veeck LL, et al. High-dose follicle-stimulating hormone stimulation at the onset of the menstrual cycle does not improve the in vitro fertilization outcome in low-responder patients. Fertil Steril 1990;53:486–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Ho off MH, Alberda AT, Huisman GJ, et al. Doubling the human menopausal gonadotrophin dose in the course of an in-vitro fertilization treat-ment cycle in low responders: a randomized study. Hum Reprod 1993;8:369–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Land JA, Yarmolinskaya MI, Dumoulin JC, et al. High-dose human menopausal gonadotropin stim-ulation in poor responders does not improve in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 1996;65:961–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karande V, Morris R, Rinehart J, et al. Limited success using the 'flare' protocol in poor responders in cycles with low basal follicle-stimulating hor-mone levels during in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1997;67:900–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dor J, Seidman DS, Amudai E, et al. Adjuvant growth hormone therapy in poor responders to in-vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study. Hum Reprod 1995;10:40–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindheim SR, Vidali A, Ditkoff E, et al. Poor responders to ovarian hyperstimulation may benefit from an attempt at natural-cycle oocyte retrieval. J Assist Reprod Genet 1997;14:174–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssens RMJ, Lambalk CBL, Schats R, et al. Successful in-vitro fertilization in a natural cycle after four previously failed attempts in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2497–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassil S, Godin PA, Donnez J. Outcome of in-vitro fertilization through natural cycles in poor responders. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1262–5
   Google Scholar
• Daya S, Gunby J, Hughes EG, et al. Natural cycles for in-vitro fertilization: cost-effectiveness analysis and factors influencing outcome. Hum Reprod 1995;10:1719–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fauser BC, Devroey P, Yen SS, et al. Minimal ovarian stimulation for IVF: appraisal of potential benefits and drawbacks. Hum Reprod 1999;14: 2681–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olivennes F, Frydman R. Friendly IVF: the way of the future? Hum Reprod 1998;13:1121–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards RG, Lobo R, Bouchard P. Time to revo-lutionize ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 1996; 11:917–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. How to avoid multiple pregnancies in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 1998;13: 197–214
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulson RJ, Sauer MV, Francis MM, et al. In vitro fertilization in unstimulated cycles: the University of Southern California experience. Fertil Steril 1992;57:290–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahy UM, Cahill DJ, Wardle PG, et al. In-vitro fertilization in completely natural cycles. Hum Reprod 1995;10:572–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modan B, Ron E, Lerner-Geva L, et al. Cancer incidence in a cohort of infertile women. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:1038–42
   Google Scholar
• Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GA, et al. In vitro fertilization in a spontaneous cycle: a successful simple protocol. J Obstet Gynaeco11995;21:337–40
   Google Scholar
• Paulson RJ, Sauer MV, Lobo RA. Embryo implan-tation after human in vitro fertilization: importance of endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril 1990;53: 870–4
   Google Scholar
• Zayed F, Lenton EA, Cooke ID. Natural cycle in-vitro fertilization in couples with unexplained infertility: impact of various factors on outcome. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2402–7
   Google Scholar
• Rongieres-Bertrand C, Olivennes F, Righini C, et al. Revival of the natural cycles in in-vitro fertil-ization with the use of a new gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (Cetrorelix): a pilot study with minimal stimulation. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:683–8
   Google Scholar
• Lindheim SR, Sauer MV, Francis MM, et al. The significance of elevated early follicular-phase follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) levels: observa-tions in unstimulated in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 1996;13:49–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott RT, Toner JP, Muasher SJ, et al. Follicle-stimulating hormone levels on cycle day 3 are predictive of in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 1989;51:651–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebrahim A, Rienhardt G, Morris S, et al. Follicle stimulating hormone levels on cycle day 3 predict ovulation stimulation response. J Assist Reprod Genet 1993;10:130–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott RT Jr, Hofmann GE, Oehninger S, et al. Intercycle variability of day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone levels and its effect on stimulation quality in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1990;54:297–302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown JR, Liu HC, Sewitch KF, et al. Variability of day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone levels in eumenorrheic women. J Reprod Med 1995;40: 620–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar