Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2008
  • Online publication date: December 2009

21 - Doesself-regulation work for implementation of single embryo transfer?

from Section 3 - Controversies

REFERENCES

1.Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2004 version 3.1. Accessed January 2, 2008 at www.m-w.com.
2. J. A. Land and J. L. H. Evers, Risks and complications in assisted reproduction techniques: Report of an ESHRE Consensus Meeting. Hum. Reprod., 18:2 (2003), 455–457.
3. M. J. Davies, J. X. Wang and R. J. Norman, What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? Assessing the BESST index for reproduction treatment. Hum. Reprod., 19 (2004), 1049–1051.
4. R. P. Dickey, B. M. Sartor and R. Pyrzak, What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?Hum. Reprod., 19:4 (2004), 783–787.
5. E. Vayena, P. J. Rowe and P. D. Griffin (eds.), Recommendations. Medical, Ethical and Social Aspects of Assisted Reproduction: Current Practices and Controversies in Assisted Reproduction. Report of a WHO meeting. (Geneva, Switzerland: WHO publications, 2001), pp. 381–396.
6. M. Germond, F. Urner, A. Chansonet al., What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The cumulated singleton/twin delivery rates per oocyte pick-up: the CUSIDERA and CUTWIDERA. Hum. Reprod., 19:11 (2004), 2442–2444.
7. H. W. Jones, Multiple births: how are we doing?Fertil. Steril., 79:1 (2003), 17–21.
8. IFFS surveillance 98. Fertil. Steril., 71:5 Suppl. 2 (1999), 1S–34S.
9. H. W. Jones Jr. and J. Cohen, IFFS surveillance 01. Fertil. Steril., 76: 5 Suppl. 2 (2001), S5–S36.
10. IFFS surveillance 03. Fertil. Steril., 81: Suppl. 4 (2004), S9–S54.
11. H. Jones, Jr. and J. Cohen, IFFS surveillance 2007. Fertil. Steril., 87:4 Suppl. 1 (2007), S1–S67.
12. G. D. Adamson, J. de Mouzon, P. Lancasteret al., World collaborative report on in vitro fertilization for year 2000. Fertil. Steril., 85:6 (2006), 1586–1622.
13. A. P. Feraretti, L. Gianaroli, M. C. Magliet al., Medically assisted conception: an established clinical procedure? In Italy not anymore. Hum. Reprod., 20: Suppl. (2005), i21–i22.
14. T. Jain, B. L. Harlow and M. D. Hornstein, Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization. N. Engl. J. Med., 347 (2002), 661–666.
15. C. Hydén-Granskog, L. Unkila-Kallio, M. Halttunen and A. Tiitinen, Single embryo transfer is an option in frozen embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod., 20 (2005), 2935–2938.
16. A. Brewaeys, J. K. de Bruyn, L. A. Louwe and F. M. Helmerhorst, Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients’ choices. Hum. Reprod., 20 (2005), 820–824.
17. I. Craft and A. Thornhill, Would all-inclusive compensation attract more gamete donors to balance their loss of anonymity?Reprod. Biomed. Online, 10 (2005), 301–306.
18. E. G. Papanikolaou, M. Camus, E. M. Kolibianakiset al., In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryos. N. Engl. J. Med., 354:11 (2006), 1139–1146. Comment in: N. Engl. J. Med., 354:11 (2006), 1190–1193.
19. Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil. Steril., 86: 5 Suppl. (2006), S51–S52.
20. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Child-rearing and the provision of fertility services. Fertil. Steril., 82: 3 (2004), 564–567.
21. J. Stone, K. Eddleman, L. Lynch and R. L. Berkowitz, A single center experience with 1000 consecutive cases of multifetal pregnancy reduction. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 187 (2002), 1163–1167.
22. M. I. Evans, D. Ciorica, D. W. Britt and J. C. Fletcher, Update on selective reduction. Prenat. Diagn., 25 (2005), 807–813.
23. D. W. Britt, W. J. G. Evans, S. S. Mahta and M. I. Evans, Framing the decision: determinants of how women considering multifetal pregnancy reduction as a pregnancy-management strategy frame their moral dilemma. Fetal Diagn Ther., 19 (2004), 232–240.
24. J. Gerris, Single embryo transfer and IVF/ICSI outcome: a balanced appraisal. Hum. Reprod. Update, 11 (2005), 105–121.
25. C. Bergh, Single embryo transfer: a mini-review. Hum. Reprod., 20 (2005), 323–327.
26. A. Tiitinen and M. Gissler, Effect of in vitro fertilization practices on multiple pregnancy rates in Finland. Fertil. Steril., 82 (2004), 1689–1690.
27. C. Hydén-Granskog and A. Tiitinen, Single embryo transfer in clinical practice. Hum. Fertil. (Camb.), 7 (2004), 175–182.
28. T. Jain, S. A. Missmer and M. D. Hornstein, Trends in embryo-transfer practice and in outcomes of the use of assisted reproductive technology in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med., 350 (2004), 1639–1645.
29. N. Gleicher and D. Barad, The relative myth of single embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod., 21 (2006), 1337–1344.
30. N. Gleicher, A. Weghofer and D. Barad, Update on comparison of assisted reproduction outcomes between Europe and the USA: the 2002 data. Fertil. Steril., 87:6 (2007), 1301–1305. Epub 2007 Apr 6.
31. N. Gleicher, A. Weghofer and D. Barad, On the benefit of assisted reproduction techniques, a comparison of the USA and Europe. Hum. Reprod., 22:2 (2007), 624–626; doi:10.1093/humrep/del405.
32. A. P. A. van Montfoort, A. A. A. Fiddelers, J. M. Janssenet al., In unselected patients, elective single embryo transfer prevents all multiples, but results in significantly lower pregnancy rates compared with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum. Reprod., 21 (2006), 338–343.
33. G. D. Adamson, Regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in the United States. American Bar Association Family Law Quarterly. 39:3 (2005), 727–744.
34. G. D. Adamson, Regulation of the assisted reproductive technologies in the United States. Fertil. Steril., 78 (2002), 932–942.
35.The Fertility Clinics Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992; Public Law 102–493.
36. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2001 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry. Fertil. Steril., 87:6 (2007), 1253–1266.
37.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Assisted Reproductive Technology Reports. Accessed January 2, 2008 at www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/ART/index.htm.
38. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), Pub. L. 100–578.
39. V. L. Baker, M. O. Gvakharia, H. M. Rone, J. R. Manalad and G. D. Adamson, Economic cost for implementation of the U. S. Food and Drug Administration's Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Part 1271 in an egg donor program. Fertil. Steril., (2007), Oct 20 (Epub ahead of print).
40. www.asrm.org. Accessed January 2, 2008.
41. J. P. Toner, Progress we can be proud of: U. S. trends in assisted reproduction over the first 20 years. Fertil. Steril., 78:5 (2002), 943–950.
42. J. E. Stern, M. I. Cedars, T. Jainet al., Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Writing Group. Assisted reproductive technology practice patterns and the impact of embryo transfer guidelines in the United States. Fertil. Steril., 88:2 (2007), 275–282. Epub 2007 Apr 18.
43. N. Gleicher, A. Weghofer and D. Barad, A formal comparison of the practice of assisted reproductive technologies between Europe and the USA. Hum. Reprod., 21 (2006), 1945–1950; doi:10.1093/humrep/del138.
44. H. Szoke, The nanny state or responsible government?J. Law Med., 9:4 (2002), 470–482.
45. D. D. M. Braat, J. A. Kremer and W. L. D. M. Nelen, Barriers and facilitators for implementation of single embryo transfer (eSET) in in vitro fertilization (IVF). Hum. Reprod., 20: Suppl. 1 (2005), i30.
46. U. M. Reddy, R. J. Wapner, R. W. Rebar and R. J. Tasca, Infertility, assisted reproductive technology, and adverse pregnancy outcomes: executive summary of a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop. Obstet. Gynecol., 109:4 (2007), 967–977.
47. J. Arons, Center for American Progress. Future Choices. Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Law. December 2007. Accessed January 8, 2008 at www.americanprogress.org.
48. N. Darlington and P. Matson, The fate of cryopreserved human embryos approaching their legal limit of storage within a West Australian in-vitro fertilization clinic. Hum. Reprod., 14:9 (1999), 2343–2344.
49.Human Fertilization and Embryology Act,1990 (Chapter 37). Accessed January 8, 2008 at www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_19900037_en_1.htm.
50. D. Mortimer and C. L. Barratt, Is there a real risk of transmitting variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease by donor sperm insemination?Reprod. Biomed. Online, 13:6 (2006), 778–790.
51. K. Nygren, A. N. Andersen, R. Felberbaum, L. Gianaroli, J. de Mouzon and Members of ESHRE's European IVF Monitoring (EIM). On the benefit of assisted reproduction techniques, a comparison of USA and Europe. Hum. Reprod., 21:8 (2006), 2194; doi:10.1093/humrep/del238.
52. K. Petersen and M. H. Johnson, SmARTest regulations? Comparing the regulatory structures for ART in the UK and Australia. Reprod. Biomed. Online, 15:2 (2007), 236–244.
53. K. Petersen, The regulation of assisted reproductive technology: a comparative study of permissive and prescriptive laws and policies. J. Law Med., 9:4 (2002), 483–497.
54. K. Petersen, H. W. Baker, M. Pitts and R. Thorpe, Assisted reproductive technologies: professional and legal restrictions in Australian clinics. J. Law Med., 12:3 (2002), 373–385.
55. R. Storrow, Extraterritorial effects of fertility tourism arising from restrictive reproductive laws: what should national parliaments consider?Hum. Reprod., 20:Suppl. 1 (2005), i48–i49.
56. M. H. Johnson, The art of regulation and the regulation of ART: the impact of regulation on research and clinical practice. J. Law Med., 9:4 (2002), 399–413.
57. A. Murdoch, Triplets and embryo transfer policy. Hum. Reprod., 12:Suppl. 11 (1997), 88–92.
58. T. J. Child, A. M. Henderson and S. L. Tan, The desire for multiple pregnancy in male and female infertility patients. Hum. Reprod., 19:3 (2004), 558–561.
59. E. R. Hernandez, Avoiding multiple pregnancies: sailing uncharted seas. Hum. Reprod., 16:4 (2001), 615–616.
60. C. Olivius, B. Friden, G. Borg and C. Bergh, Why do couples discontinue in vitro fertilization treatment? A cohort study. Fertil. Steril., 81:2 (2004), 258–261.
61. J. M. J. Smeernk, C. M. Verhaak, A. M. Stolwijk, J. A. M. Kremer and D. D. M. Braat, Reasons for dropout in an in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection program. Fertil. Steril., 81:2 (2004), 262–268.
62. A. S. Penzias, When and why does the dream die? Or does it?Fertil. Steril., 81:2 (2004), 274–275.
63. A. D. Domar, Impact of psychological factors on dropout rates in insured infertility patients. Fertil. Steril., 81:2 (2004), 271–273.
64. C. E. Malcolm and D. C. Cumming, Follow-up of infertile couples who dropped out of a specialist fertility clinic. Fertil. Steril., 81:2 (2004), 269–270.
65. German Act for the Protection of Embryos (1990). Official Gazette, 1(1990), 2746.
66. R. Felderbaum, ART laws put patients at risk and should be changed, warns head of Germany's IVF registry. From European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology 2003. Accessed January 2, 2008 at www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2003/E/20032592.html.
67.European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, Italian law on ART brings problems for doctors and patients. June 22, 2005. Accessed January 2, 2008 at www.medicalnewstoday.com/ medicalnews.php?newsid=26443.
68. V. Fineschi, M. Neri and E. Turillazzi, The new Italian law on assisted reproduction technology (Law 40/2004). J. Med. Ethics, 31 (2005), 536–539.
69. G. Ragni, A. Allegra, P. Anseriniet al., The 2004 Italian legislation regulating assisted reproductive technology: a multicenter survey on the results of IVF cycles. Hum. Reprod., 20 (2005), 2224–2228.
70. J. Tizzard, Restrictive laws in Europe are harming patients. BioNews, July 5, 2003. Accessed January 2, 2008 at www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/international/europe/ 15SPAI.html?ex=1077823559&ei=1&en=c0095 959d6296136.
71.House of Commons of Canada. Bill C-6: An Act respecting assisted human reproduction and related research. Accessed January 2, 2008 at www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_ls.asp?Parl=37&Ses=3&ls=C6.
72. C. Rasmussen, Canada's Assisted Human Reproductive Act: is it scientific censorship, or a reasoned approach to the regulation of rapidly emerging reproductive technologies?Sask Law Rev., 67:1 (2004), 97–135.
73. K. A. de Boer, J. W. Catt, R. P. S. Jansen, D. Leigh and S. McArthur, Moving to blastocyst biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and single embryo transfer at Sydney IVF. Fertil. Steril., 82:2 (2004), 295–298.
74. G. D. Adamson and V. L. Baker, Multiple births from assisted reproductive technologies: a challenge that must be met. Fertil. Steril., 81 (2004), 517–522.
75. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Contribution of assisted reproductive technology and ovulation-inducing drugs to triplet and higher-order multiple births – United States, 1980–1997. MMWR Morb. Mortal Wkly Rep., 49 (2000), 535–538.
76. M. A. Reynolds and L. A. Schieve, Trends in embryo transfer practices and multiple gestation for IVF procedures in the USA, 1996–2002. Hum. Reprod., 21:3 (2006), 694–700.
77. R. J. Stillman, A 47-year-old woman with fertility problems who desires a multiple pregnancy. JAMA, 297 (2007), 858–867.