Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-546b4f848f-lx7sf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-01T13:48:47.124Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Section 4 - Rethinking and Redefining “Family Planning” for the Twenty-First Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2022

Edited by
Dimitrios S. Nikolaou  and
David B. Seifer
Dimitrios S. Nikolaou
Affiliation:
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London
David B. Seifer
Affiliation:
Yale Reproductive Medicine, New Haven, CT
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Optimizing the Management of Fertility in Women over 40 , pp. 39 - 70
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Tal, R, Seifer, DB. Ovarian reserve testing: a user’s guide. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2017;217(2):129–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steiner, AZ, Jukic, AM. Impact of female age and nulligravidity on fecundity in an older reproductive age cohort. Fertility & Sterility. 2016;105(6):1584–8.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, KE, Case, A. No. 346-Advanced reproductive age and fertility. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Canada. 2017;39(8):685–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleming, R, Seifer, DB, Frattarelli, JL, Ruman, J. Assessing ovarian response: antral follicle count versus anti-Mullerian hormone. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2015;31(4):486–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ripley, M, Lanes, A, Leveille, MC, Shmorgun, D. Does ovarian reserve predict egg quality in unstimulated therapeutic donor insemination cycles? Fertility & Sterility. 2015;103(5):1170–5.e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, SM, Telfer, EE, Anderson, RA. The ageing ovary and uterus: new biological insights. Human Reproduction Update. 2012;19(1):67–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devine, K, Mumford, SL, Wu, M, DeCherney, AH, Hill, MJ, Propst, A. Diminished ovarian reserve in the United States assisted reproductive technology population: diagnostic trends among 181,536 cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System. Fertility & Sterility. 2015;104(3):612–19.e3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toner, JPS, Seifer DB Why we may abandon basal follicle-stimulating hormone testing: a sea change in determining ovarian reserve using antimullerian hormone. Fertility & Sterility. 2013;99(7):1825–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Rooij, IA, Broekmans, FJ, Scheffer, GJ, Looman, CW, Habbema, JD, de Jong, FH, et al. Serum antimullerian hormone levels best reflect the reproductive decline with age in normal women with proven fertility: a longitudinal study. Fertility & Sterility. 2005;83(4):979–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winslow, KL, Toner, JP, Brzyski, RG, Oehninger, SC, Acosta, AA, Muasher, SJ. The gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist stimulation test—a sensitive predictor of performance in the flare-up in vitro fertilization cycle. Fertility & Sterility. 1991;56(4):711–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanchin, R, de Ziegler, D, Olivennes, F, Taieb, J, Dzik, A, Frydman, R. Endocrinology: Exogenous follicle stimulating hormone ovarian reserve test (EFORT): a simple and reliable screening test for detecting ‘poor responders’ in in-vitro fertilization. Human Reproduction. 1994;9(9):1607–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McTavish, KJ, Jimenez, M, Walters, KA, Spaliviero, J, Groome, NP, Themmen, AP, et al. Rising follicle-stimulating hormone levels with age accelerate female reproductive failure. Endocrinology 2007;148(9):4432–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lass, A, Skull, J, McVeigh, E, Margara, R, Winston, RM. Measurement of ovarian volume by transvaginal sonography before ovulation induction with human menopausal gonadotrophin for in-vitro fertilization can predict poor response. Human Reproduction. 1997;12(2):294–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, M-Y. Use of the antral follicle count to predict the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertility & Sterility. 1997;69(3):505–10.Google Scholar
Hansen, KR, Morris, JL, Thyer, AC, Soules, MR. Reproductive aging and variability in the ovarian antral follicle count: application in the clinical setting. Fertility & Sterility. 2003;80(3):577–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landersoe, SK, Birch Petersen, K, Sorensen, AL, Larsen, EC, Martinussen, T, Lunding, SA, et al. Ovarian reserve markers after discontinuing long-term use of combined oral contraceptives. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2020;40(1):176–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seifer, DB, MacLaughlin, DT, Christian, BP, Feng, B, Shelden, RM. Early follicular serum mullerian-inhibiting substance levels are associated with ovarian response during assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertility & Sterility. 2002;77(3):468–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Styer, AK, Gaskins, AJ, Brady, PC, Sluss, PM, Chavarro, JE, Hauser, RB, et al. Dynamic antimullerian hormone levels during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation predict in vitro fertilization response and pregnancy outcomes. Fertility & Sterility. 2015;104(5):1153–61.e1-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, SM, Pastuszek, E, Kloss, G, Malinowska, I, Liss, J, Lukaszuk, A, et al. Two new automated, compared with two enzyme-linked immunosorbent, antimüllerian hormone assays. Fertility & Sterility. 2015;104(4):1016–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leader, B, Baker, VL. Maximizing the clinical utility of antimullerian hormone testing in women’s health. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2014;26(4):226–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seifer, DB, Baker, VL, Leader, B. Age-specific serum anti-Mullerian hormone values for 17,120 women presenting to fertility centers within the United States. Fertility & Sterility. 2011;95(2):747–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burks, HR, Ross, L, Opper, N, Paulson, E, Stanczyk, FZ, Chung, K. Can highly sensitive antimullerian hormone testing predict failed response to ovarian stimulation? Fertility & Sterility. 2015;104(3):643–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seifer, DB, Tal, O, Wantman, E, Edul, P, Baker, VL. Prognostic indicators of assisted reproduction technology outcomes of cycles with ultralow serum antimullerian hormone: a multivariate analysis of over 5,000 autologous cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System database for 2012–2013. Fertility & Sterility. 2016;105(2):385–93.e3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifer, DB, Golub, ET, Lambert-Messerlian, G, Benning, L, Anastos, K, Watts, DH, et al. Variations in serum mullerian inhibiting substance between white, black, and Hispanic women. Fertility & Sterility. 2009;92(5):1674–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tal, R, Seifer, DB, Wantman, E, Baker, V, Tal, O. Antimullerian hormone as a predictor of live birth following assisted reproduction: an analysis of 85,062 fresh and thawed cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System database for 2012–2013. Fertility & Sterility. 2018;109(2):258–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tal, R, Tal, O, Seifer, BJ, Seifer, DB. Antimullerian hormone as predictor of implantation and clinical pregnancy after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertility & Sterility. 2015;103(1):119–30.e3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tal, R, Seifer, DB, Tal, R, Granger, E, Wantman, E, Tal, O. AMH highly correlates with cumulative live birth rate in women with diminished ovarian reserve independent of age. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2021;106(9):2754–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyttle Schumacher, BM, Jukic, AMZ, Steiner, AZ. Antimullerian hormone as a risk factor for miscarriage in naturally conceived pregnancies. Fertility & Sterility. 2018;109(6):1065–71.e1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCormack, CD, Leemaqz, SY, Furness, DL, Dekker, GA, Roberts, CT. Anti-Mullerian hormone levels in recurrent embryonic miscarriage patients are frequently abnormal, and may affect pregnancy outcomes. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2019;39(5):623–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shebl, O, Ebner, T, Sir, A, Schreier-Lechner, E, Mayer, RB, Tews, G, et al. Age-related distribution of basal serum AMH level in women of reproductive age and a presumably healthy cohort. Fertility & Sterility. 2011;95(2):832–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarasconi, B, Tadros, T, Ayoubi, JM, Belloc, S, de Ziegler, D, Fanchin, R. Serum antimullerian hormone levels are independently related to miscarriage rates after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertility & Sterility. 2017;108(3):518–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zarek, SM, Mitchell, EM, Sjaarda, LA, Mumford, SL, Silver, RM, Stanford, JB, et al. Antimüllerian hormone and pregnancy loss from the Effects of Aspirin in Gestation and Reproduction trial. Fertility & Sterility. 2016;105(4):946–52.e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, EW, Sammel, MD, Lin, H, Gracia, CR. Anti-mullerian hormone as a predictor of time to menopause in late reproductive age women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2012;97(5):1673–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, HL, Bhatti, S, Suhail, S, Gul, R, Awais, A, Hamayun, H, et al. Antral follicle count (AFC) and serum anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) are the predictors of natural fecundability have similar trends irrespective of fertility status and menstrual characteristics among fertile and infertile women below the age of 40 years. Reproductive Biology & Endocrinology. 2019;17(1):20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, S, Zhang, Y, Mensah, V, Huber, WJ, 3rd, Huang, YT, Alvero, R. Discordant anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) among women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF): which one is the better predictor for live birth? Journal of Ovarian Research. 2018;11(1):60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leader, B, Hegde, A, Baca, Q, Stone, K, Lannon, B, Seifer, DB, et al. High frequency of discordance between antimullerian hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone levels in serum from estradiol-confirmed days 2 to 4 of the menstrual cycle from 5,354 women in U.S. fertility centers. Fertility & Sterility. 2012;98(4):1037–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ligon, S, Lustik, M, Levy, G, Pier, B. Low antimullerian hormone (AMH) is associated with decreased live birth after in vitro fertilization when follicle-stimulating hormone and AMH are discordant. Fertility & Sterility. 2019;112(1):73–81.e1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hipp, HS, Kawwass, JF. Discordant ovarian reserve testing: what matters most? Fertility & Sterility. 2019;112(1):34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. IVF Success Estimator. 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/art/ivf-success-estimator/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kushnir, VA, Choi, J, Darmon, SK, Albertini, DF, Barad, DH, Gleicher, N. CDC-reported assisted reproductive technology live-birth rates may mislead the public. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2017;35(2):161–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2017 Assisted Reproductive Technology Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report. 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/art/reports/2017/fertility-clinic.htmlGoogle Scholar
Goldman, RJF. BWH Egg Freezing Counseling Tool (EFCT). MD Calc. 2019. https://www.mdcalc.com/bwh-egg-freezing-counseling-tool-efctGoogle Scholar
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. What are my chances with ART. 2020. https://www.sartcorsonline.com/Predictor/PatientGoogle Scholar
Venturella, R, Lico, D, Sarica, A, Falbo, MP, Gulletta, E, Cannataro, M, et al. A new algorithm to predict ovarian age combining clinical, biochemical and 3D-ultrasonographic parameters. Fertility & Sterility. 2014;102(3):e145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ReproSource I. ReproSource Ovarian Assessment Report Clinical Data Update from Multiple US Fertility Centers. 2019.Google Scholar
Univfy Inc. Univfy PreIVF Report. 2013. https://www.univfy.com/ivf-successGoogle Scholar
Nyboe Andersen, A, Nelson, SM, Fauser, BCJM, García-Velasco, JA, Klein, BM, Arce, J-C, et al. Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Fertility & Sterility. 2017;107(2):387–96.e4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friis Petersen, J, Løkkegaard, E, Andersen, LF, Torp, K, Egeberg, A, Hedegaard, L, et al. A randomized controlled trial of AMH-based individualized FSH dosing in a GnRH antagonist protocol for IVF. Human Reproduction Open. 2019;2019(1):hoz003-hoz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickman, LC, Fortin, C, Goodman, L, Liu, X, Flyckt, R. Fertility and fertility preservation: knowledge, awareness and attitudes of female graduate students. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care. 2018;23(2):130–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurley, EG, Ressler, IB, Young, S, Batcheller, A, Thomas, MA, DiPaola, KB, et al. Postponing childbearing and fertility preservation in young professional women. Southern Medical Journal. 2018;111(4):187–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azhar, E, Seifer, DB, Melzer, K, Ahmed, A, Weedon, J, Minkoff, H. Knowledge of ovarian reserve and reproductive choices. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2015;32(3):409–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Brien, Y, Kelleher, C, Wingfield, M. “So what happens next?” exploring the psychological and emotional impact of anti-Mullerian hormone testing. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2020;41(1):30–7.Google ScholarPubMed
ACOG Committee. Opinion No. 773 Summary: The use of antimüllerian hormone in women not seeking fertility care. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019;133:e275–9.Google Scholar
Steiner, AZ, Pritchard, D, Stanczyk, FZ, Kesner, JS, Meadows, JW, Herring, AH, et al. Association between biomarkers of ovarian reserve and infertility among older women of reproductive age. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2017;318(14):1367–76.Google ScholarPubMed
Seifer, DB, Minkoff, H, Merhi, Z. Putting ‘family’ back in family planning. Human Reproduction. 2015;30(1):16–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Baldwin, K., Conceptualising women’s motivations for social egg freezing and experience of reproductive delay. Sociol Health Illn, 2018. 40(5): p. 859–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunson, D.B., Baird, D.D., and Colombo, B., Increased infertility with age in men and women. Obstet Gynecol, 2004. 103(1): p. 51–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicoletti, C. and Tanturri, M.L., Differences in delaying motherhood across European countries: empirical evidence from the ECHP / Différences entre pays européens dans le retard à la maternité: Analyse des données de l’ECHP. European Journal of Population / Revue Européenne de Démographie, 2008. 24(2): p. 157–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leridon, H., A new estimate of permanent sterility by age: sterility defined as the inability to conceive. Popul Stud (Camb), 2008. 62(1): p. 15–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, K.N., Elective oocyte cryopreservation: an ounce of prevention? Fertil Steril, 2018. 109(6): p. 1014–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alteri, A., et al., Elective egg freezing without medical indications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2019. 98(5): p. 647–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawford, S., et al., Cryopreserved oocyte versus fresh oocyte assisted reproductive technology cycles, United States, 2013. Fertil Steril, 2017. 107(1): p. 110–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waldby, C., ‘Banking time’: egg freezing and the negotiation of future fertility. Cult Health Sex, 2015. 17(4): p. 470–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Argyle, C.E., Harper, J.C., and Davies, M.C., Oocyte cryopreservation: where are we now? Hum Reprod Update, 2016. 22(4): p. 440–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cobo, A., et al., Six years’ experience in ovum donation using vitrified oocytes: report of cumulative outcomes, impact of storage time, and development of a predictive model for oocyte survival rate. Fertil Steril, 2015. 104(6): p. 1426–34.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dondorp, W., et al., Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. Hum Reprod, 2012. 27(5): p. 1231–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril, 2013. 99(1): p. 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RCOG. RCOG suggests caution over social egg freezing. 8 August 2018; Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/rcog-suggests-caution-over-social-egg-freezing/.Google Scholar
Cobo, A., et al., Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation. Fertil Steril, 2016. 105(3): p. 755–764.e8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cil, A.P., Bang, H., and Oktay, K., Age-specific probability of live birth with oocyte cryopreservation: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril, 2013. 100(2): p. 492–9.e3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doyle, J.O., et al., Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertil Steril, 2016. 105(2): p. 459–66.e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), Fertility Treatment 2014-2016: trends and figures. 2018. Available from: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/3188/hfea-fertility-trends-and-figures-2014-2016.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hammarberg, K., et al., Reproductive experiences of women who cryopreserved oocytes for non-medical reasons. Hum Reprod, 2017. 32(3): p. 575–81.Google ScholarPubMed
Stoop, D., Nekkebroeck, J., and Devroey, P., A survey on the intentions and attitudes towards oocyte cryopreservation for non-medical reasons among women of reproductive age. Hum Reprod, 2011. 26(3): p. 655–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cobo, A., et al., Elective and Onco-fertility preservation: factors related to IVF outcomes. Hum Reprod, 2018. 33(12): p. 2222–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwood, E.A., et al., To freeze or not to freeze: decision regret and satisfaction following elective oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil Steril, 2018. 109(6): p. 1097–104.e1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoop, D., et al., Does oocyte banking for anticipated gamete exhaustion influence future relational and reproductive choices? A follow-up of bankers and non-bankers. Hum Reprod, 2015. 30(2): p. 338–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bracewell-Milnes, T., Norman-Taylor, J., and Nikolaou, D., Social egg freezing should be offered to single women approaching their late thirties: AGAINST: Women should be freezing their eggs earlier. BJOG, 2018. 125(12): p. 1580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemoine, M.E. and Ravitsky, V., Sleepwalking into infertility: the need for a public health approach toward advanced maternal age. Am J Bioeth, 2015. 15(11): p. 37–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ter Keurst, A., Boivin, J., and Gameiro, S., Women’s intentions to use fertility preservation to prevent age-related fertility decline. Reprod Biomed Online, 2016. 32(1): p. 121–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, R.H., et al., Predicting the likelihood of live birth for elective oocyte cryopreservation: a counseling tool for physicians and patients. Hum Reprod, 2017. 32(4): p. 853–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mesen, T.B., et al., Optimal timing for elective egg freezing. Fertil Steril, 2015. 103(6): p. 1551–6.e1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Loendersloot, L.L., et al., Expanding reproductive lifespan: a cost-effectiveness study on oocyte freezing. Hum Reprod, 2011. 26(11): p. 3054–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, K., et al., Baby budgeting: oocyte cryopreservation in women delaying reproduction can reduce cost per live birth. Fertil Steril, 2015. 103(6): p. 1446–53.e1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirshfeld-Cytron, J., Grobman, W.A., and Milad, M.P., Fertility preservation for social indications: a cost-based decision analysis. Fertil Steril, 2012. 97(3): p. 665–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malchau, S.S., et al., The long-term prognosis for live birth in couples initiating fertility treatments. Hum Reprod, 2017. 32(7): p. 1439–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodes-Wertz, B., et al., What do reproductive-age women who undergo oocyte cryopreservation think about the process as a means to preserve fertility? Fertil Steril, 2013. 100(5): p. 1343–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, K., et al., Oocyte cryopreservation for social reasons: demographic profile and disposal intentions of UK users. Reprod Biomed Online 2015. 31(2): p. 239–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gürtin, Z.B., et al., For whom the egg thaws: insights from an analysis of 10 years of frozen egg thaw data from two UK clinics, 2008-2017. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2019. 36(6): p. 1069–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gurtin, Z.B., Ahuja, K.K., and Golombok, S., Emotional and relational aspects of egg-sharing: egg-share donors’ and recipients’ feelings about each other, each others’ treatment outcome and any resulting children. Hum Reprod, 2012. 27(6): p. 1690–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inhorn, M.C., et al., Ten pathways to elective egg freezing: a binational analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2018. 35(11): p. 2003–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pritchard, N., et al., Characteristics and circumstances of women in Australia who cryopreserved their oocytes for non-medical indications. J Reprod Infant Psychol, 2017. 35(2): p. 108–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, B.P., et al., Perceptions, outcomes, and regret following social egg freezing in the UK; a cross-sectional survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2020. 99(3): p. 324–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, K., et al., Running out of time: exploring women’s motivations for social egg freezing. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol, 2019. 40(2): p. 166–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, S. and Ruggles, S., Breaking up is hard to count: the rise of divorce in the United States, 1980-2010. Demography, 2014. 51(2): p. 587–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodtli, N., et al., Attitude towards ovarian tissue and oocyte cryopreservation for non-medical reasons: a cross-sectional study. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2018. 298(1): p. 191–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tozzo, P., et al., Understanding social oocyte freezing in Italy: a scoping survey on university female students’ awareness and attitudes. Life Sci Soc Policy, 2019. 15(1): p. 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniluk, J.C. and Koert, E., Fertility awareness online: the efficacy of a fertility education website in increasing knowledge and changing fertility beliefs. Hum Reprod, 2015. 30(2): p. 353–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, K. and Kroløkke, C., Freezing for love: enacting ‘responsible’ reproductive citizenship through egg freezing. Cult Health Sex, 2018. 20(9): p. 992–1005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, S.Q., et al., Social oocyte freezing: a survey among Singaporean female medical students. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2014. 40(5): p. 1345–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniluk, J.C. and Koert, E., Childless women’s beliefs and knowledge about oocyte freezing for social and medical reasons. Hum Reprod, 2016. 31(10): p. 2313–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milman, L.W., et al., Assessing reproductive choices of women and the likelihood of oocyte cryopreservation in the era of elective oocyte freezing. Fertil Steril, 2017. 107(5): p. 1214–22.e3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lallemant, C., et al., Medical and social egg freezing: internet-based survey of knowledge and attitudes among women in Denmark and the UK. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2016. 95(12): p. 1402–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurley, E.G., et al., Postponing childbearing and fertility preservation in young professional women. South Med J, 2018. 111(4): p. 187–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baylis, F., Left out in the cold: arguments against non-medical oocyte cryopreservation. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2015. 37(1): p. 64–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowen-Simpkins, P., Wang, J.J., and Ahuja, K.K., The UK´s anomalous 10-year limit on oocyte storage: time to change the law. Reprod Biomed Online, 2018. 37(4): p. 387–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goold, I. and Savulescu, J., In favour of freezing eggs for non-medical reasons. Bioethics, 2009. 23(1): p. 47–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schattman, G.L., A healthy dose of reality for the egg-freezing party. Fertil Steril, 2016. 105(2): p. 307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelbaya, T.A., Short and long-term risks to women who conceive through in vitro fertilization. Hum Fertil (Camb), 2010. 13(1): p. 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Fertility treatment 2017: trends and figures. 2017; Available from: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/3189/fertility-treatment-2017-trends-and-figures.pdfGoogle Scholar
te Velde, E.R. and Pearson, P.L, The variability of female reproductive ageing. Hum Reprod Update, 2002. 8(2): p. 141–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nikolaou, D. and Templeton, A., Early ovarian ageing: a hypothesis. Detection and clinical relevance. Hum Reprod, 2003. 18(6): p. 1137–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nikolaou, D. and Templeton, A., Early ovarian ageing. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2004. 113(2): p. 126–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nikolaou, D., How old are your eggs? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2008. 20(6): p. 540–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mustafa, K.B., et al., Live birth rates are satisfactory following multiple IVF treatment cycles in poor prognosis patients. Reprod Biol, 2017. 17(1): p. 34–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papathanasiou, A., et al., Trends in ‘poor responder’ research: lessons learned from RCTs in assisted conception. Hum Reprod Update, 2016. 22(3): p. 306–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noventa, M., et al., Testosterone therapy for women with poor ovarian response undergoing IVF: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2019. 36(4): p. 673–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, M., et al., Dehydroepiandrosterone treatment in women with poor ovarian response undergoing IVF or ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2016. 33(8): p. 981–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haahr, T., Esteves, S.C., and Humaidan, P., Individualized controlled ovarian stimulation in expected poor-responders: an update. Reprod Biol Endocrinol, 2018. 16(1): p. 20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Brien, Y., et al., What women want? A scoping survey on women’s knowledge, attitudes and behaviours towards ovarian reserve testing and egg freezing. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2017. 217: p. 71–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azhar, E., et al., Knowledge of ovarian reserve and reproductive choices. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2015. 32(3): p. 409–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hvidman, H.W., et al., Individual fertility assessment and pro-fertility counselling; should this be offered to women and men of reproductive age? Hum Reprod, 2015. 30(1): p. 9–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tremellen, K. and Savulescu, J., Ovarian reserve screening: a scientific and ethical analysis. Hum Reprod, 2014. 29(12): p. 2606–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tal, R. and Seifer, D.B., Ovarian reserve testing: a user’s guide. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2017. 217(2): p. 129–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine.Ovarian tissue cryopreservation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2014. 101(5): p. 1237–43.Google Scholar
Diaz-Garcia, C., et al., Oocyte vitrification versus ovarian cortex transplantation in fertility preservation for adult women undergoing gonadotoxic treatments: a prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril, 2018. 109(3): p. 478–85.e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meirow, D., et al., Transplantations of frozen-thawed ovarian tissue demonstrate high reproductive performance and the need to revise restrictive criteria. Fertil Steril, 2016. 106(2): p. 467–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donnez, J., et al., Ovarian cortex transplantation: time to move on from experimental studies to open clinical application. Fertil Steril, 2015. 104(5): p. 1097–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×