Economic evaluation of alternative assisted reproduction techniques in management of infertility in Greece

References

• DayaSLedgerWAurayJPCost-effectiveness modelling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UKHum Reprod200116122563256911726575
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WechowskiJConnollyMMcEwanPKennedyRAn economic evaluation of highly purified HMG and recombinant FSH based on a large randomized trialReprod Biomed Online200715550050618028739
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RoupaZPolikandriotiMSotiropoulouPCauses of infertility in women at reproductive ageHSJ2009328087 Available at: http://www.hsj.gr/volume3/issue2/324.pdf
   Google Scholar
• GnothCGodehardtEFrank-HerrmannPFriolKTiggesJFreundlGDefinition and prevalence of subfertility and infertilityHum Reprod20052051144114715802321
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BenagianoGBastianelliCFarrisMInfertility: a global perspectiveMinerva Ginecol200658644545717108875
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BoivinJBuntingLCollinsJANygrenKGInternational estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical careHum Reprod20072261506151217376819
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AndersenANGoossensVFerrarettiAPAssisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2004: results generated from European registers by ESHREHum Reprod200823475677118281243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WennerholmUBSöderström-AnttilaVBerghCChildren born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: a systematic review of outcome dataHum Reprod20092492158217219458318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DurnerinCIErbKFlemingREffects of recombinant LH treatment on folliculogenesis and responsiveness to FSH stimulationHum Reprod200823242142618084048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LoumayeEMartineauIPiazziAClinical assessment of human gonadotrophins produced by recombinant DNA technologyHum Reprod199611 Suppl 1951078968783
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RevelliAPosoFGennarelliGMoffaFGrassiGMassobrioMRecombinant versus highly-purified, urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (r-FSH vs HP-uFSH) in ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized study with cost-minimization analysisReprod Biol Endocrinol200643816848893
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BalenAPlatteauPAndersenANDevroeyPHelmgaardLArceJCHighly purified FSH is as efficacious as recombinant FSH for ovulation induction in women with WHO Group II anovulatory infertility: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trialHum Reprod20072271816182317449511
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PlatteauPAndersenANBalenASimilar ovulation rates, but different follicular development with highly purified menotrophin compared with recombinant FSH in WHO Group II anovulatory infertility: a randomized controlled studyHum Reprod20062171798180416571641
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SzilagyiABartfaiGManfaiAKoloszarSPalASzaboILow-dose ovulation induction with urinary gonadotropins or recombinant follicle stimulating hormone in patients with polycystic ovary syndromeGynecol Endocrinol2004181172215106360
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YaraliHBukulmezOGurganTUrinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus recombinant FSH in clomiphene citrate-resistant, normogonadotropic, chronic anovulation: a prospective randomized studyFertil Steril199972227628110438995
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OlaBAfnanMSharifKHammadiehNPapaioannouSCoomarasamyACost-effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone; whose point of view?Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand200180121141114211846714
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SykesDOutHJPalmerSJvan LoonJThe cost-effectiveness of IVF in the UK: a comparison of three gonadotrophin treatmentsHum Reprod200116122557256211726574
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HatoumHTKeyeWRJrMarrsRPWaltonSMMarshallDCA Markov model of the cost-effectiveness of human-derived follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus recombinant FSH using comparative clinical trial dataFertil Steril200583380480715749525
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SilverbergKSchertzJFalkBBeresniakAImpact of urinary FSH price: a cost-effectiveness analysis of recombinant and urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the USAReprod Biomed Online20025326526912470524
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• GerliSCasiniMLUnferVCostabileLMignosaMDi RenzoGCOvulation induction with urinary FSH or recombinant FSH in polycystic ovary syndrome patients: a prospective randomized analysis of cost-effectivenessReprod Biomed Online20049549449915588465
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SchoffsciOSowietzkiSLudwigMDecision tree analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness of r-FSH compared with u-HMG in treatment cycles with assisted reproduction techniquesPharmacoeconomics2007512939
   Google Scholar
• LudwigMRabeTBühlerKDiedrichKFelberbaumREfficacy of recombinant human FSH in comparison to urinary hMG following a long down-regulation protocol – an analysis of 24,764 ART cycles in GermanyJournal für Reproduktionsmedizin und Endokrinologie42004128290 German
   Google Scholar
• DelvigneAKostylaKDe LeenerAMetabolic characteristics of women who developed ovarian hyperstimulation syndromeHum Reprod20021781994199612151426
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AndersenANDevroeyPArceJCClinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trialHum Reprod200621123217322716873892
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van WelyMvan der VeenFMeta-analysis of recombinant FSH and urinary-derived gonadotrophins for IVF or ICSIHum Reprod20031871554155512832388
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CoomarasamyAAfnanMCheemaDvan der VeenFBossuytPMvan WelyMUrinary hMG versus recombinant FSH for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation following an agonist long down-regulation protocol in IVF or ICSI treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysisHum Reprod200823231031518056719
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JeeBCSuhCSKimYBKimSHMoonSYClinical efficacy of highly purified hMG versus recombinant FSH in IVF/ICSI cycles: a meta-analysisGynecol Obstet Invest201070213213720389096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZhaoFLYueMYangHWangTWuJHLiSCWillingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year: is one threshold enough for decision-making? Results from a study in patients with chronic prostatitisMed Care201149326727221224742
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WechowskiJConnollyMSchneiderDMcEwanPKennedyRCost- saving treatment strategies in in vitro fertilization: a combined economic evaluation of two large randomized clinical trials comparing highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin and recombinant follicle- stimulating hormone alphaFertil Steril20099141067107618339384
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RomeuABalaschJRuiz BaldaJACost-effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction techniques in the Spanish public health care systemJ Assist Reprod Genet200320829430012948090
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SilverbergKDayaSAurayJPAnalysis of the cost effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection programs in the United StatesFertil Steril200277110711311779599
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ConnollyMDe VriezeKOmbeletWSchneiderDCurrieCA cost per live birth comparison of HMG and rFSH randomized trialsReprod Biomed Online200817675676319079958
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar