‘Patient-friendly’ IVF

References

• Penning G, Ombelet W. Coming soon to your clinic: patient-friendly ART. Hum. Reprod.22(8), 2075–2079 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flisser E, Scott RT Jr, Copperman AB. Patient-friendly IVF: how should it be defined? Fertil. Steril.88(3), 547–549 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devroey P, Aboulghar M, Garcia-Velasco J et al. Improving the patient’s experience of IVF/ICSI: a proposal for an ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRH antagonist co-treatment. Hum. Reprod.24(4), 764–774 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarlatzis BC, Fauser BC, Kolibianakis EM, Diedrich K, Rombauts L, Devroey P. GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum. Reprod. Update12(4), 330–340 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Huirne JA, Homburg R, Lambalka CB. Are GnRH antagonists comparable to agonists for use in IVF? Hum. Reprod.22(11), 2805–2813 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunkara SK, Tuthill J, Khairy M et al. Pituitary suppression regimens in poor responders undergoing IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. Biomed. Online15(5), 539–546 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orvieto R, Meltzer S, Rabinson J, Zohav E, Anteby EY, Nahum R. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation: the role of endometrial receptivity. Fertil. Steril.90(4), 1294–1296 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sbracia M, Colabianchi J, Giallonardo A et al. Cetrorelix protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog suppression long protocol for superovulation in intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients older than 40. Fertil. Steril.91(5), 1842–1847 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orvieto R, Homburg R, Meltcer S, Rabinson J, Anteby EY, Scharf S. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: their role in patients with unfavorable prognosis a priori. Fertil. Steril.91(4 Suppl.), 1378–1380 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleicher N, Barad D. The relative myth of elective single embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod.21(6), 1337–1344 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scotland GS, McNamee P, Peddie VL, Bhattacharya S. Safety versus success in elective single embryo transfer: women’s preferences for outcomes of In vitro fertilization. BJOG114(8), 977–983 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S, Heineam M-J, Korevaar JC, Bossuyt PMM. Preferences of subfertile women regarding elective single embryo transfer: additional In vitro fertilization cycles are acceptable, lower pregnancy rates are not. Fertil. Steril.88(4), 1006–1009 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J et al.In vitro fertilization with preimplantaton genetic screening. N. Engl. J. Med.357(1), 9–17 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandian Z, Templeton A, Serour G, Bhattachacharya S. Number of embryos for transfer after IVF and ICSI: a Cochrane Review. Hum. Reprod.20(10), 2681–2687 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleicher N, Oktay K, Barad DH. Patients are entitled to maximal IVF pregnancy rates. RBM Online.18(5), 599–602 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad D. Preimplantation genetic screening: ‘established’ and ready for prime time? Fertil. Steril.89(4), 780–788 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleicher N, Barad DH. Arguments against elective single-embryo transfer. Expert Rev. Obstet. Gynecol.3(4), 481–486 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Coombes R. All IVF embryos should be checked for genetic defects, conference is told. BMJ330(7502), 1228 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ACOG Committee Opinion. Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy. Obstet. Gynecol.113(3), 766–770 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderson RA, Pickering S. The current status of preimplantation genetic screening. British Fertility Society Policy and Practice Guidelines. Hum. Fertil.11(2), 71–75 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gleicher N, Barad DH. Twin pregnancy, contrary to consensus, is a desirable outcome in infertility. Fertil. Steril.91(6), 2426–2431 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleicher N, Campbell DP, Chan CL et al. The desire for multiple births in couples with infertility problems contradicts present practice patterns. Hum. Reprod.10(5), 1079–1084 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinborg A. IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum. Reprod. Update11(6), 575–593 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjelberg AT, Carlson P, Bergh C. Randomized single versus double embryo transfer: obstetric and pediatric outcome and cost–effectiveness analysis. Hum. Reprod.21(7), 210–216 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Neubourg D, Gerris J. What about the remaining twins since single-embryo transfer? How far can (should) we go? Hum. Reprod.21(4), 843–846 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlström PO, Bergh C. Reducing the number of embryos transferred in Sweden – impact on delivery of multiple birth rates. Hum. Reprod.22(8), 2202–2207 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman B, Ali R, Rangarajan S. Towards the elective replacement of a single embryo (eSET) in the United Kingdom. Hum. Fertil (Camb.)10(2), 1123–1127 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Nargund G, Fauser BC, Maclon NS, Ombelet W, Nygren K, Frydman R. The ISMAAR proposal on terminology for ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum. Reprod.22(11), 2801–2804 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heijnen EM, Eijkemans MJ, De Klerk C et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilization: a randomized non-inferiority trial. Lancet369(9563), 743–749 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segawa T, Yelian F, Kato K, Kobayashi T, Takehera Y, Kato O. Natural cycle IVF is an excellent treatment option for women with advanced age. Fertil. Steril.92(Suppl.), S54 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutting R, Morroll D, Roberts SA, Pickering S, Rutherford A; British fertility Society and Association of Clinical Embryologists. Elective single embryo transfer: guidelines for practice British fertility Society and Association of Clinical Embryologists. Hum. Fertil. (Camb.) 11(3), 131–146 (2008)
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Definition of “experimental procedures”. Fertil. Steril.92, 1517 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar