Book contents
- Ovarian Stimulation
- Ovarian Stimulation
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- About the Editors
- Foreword
- Preface to the first edition
- Preface to the second edition
- Section 1 Mild Forms of Ovarian Stimulation
- Section 2 Ovarian Hyperstimulation for IVF
- Section 3 Difficulties and Complications of Ovarian Stimulation and Implantation
- Section 4 Non-conventional Forms Used during Ovarian Stimulation
- Section 5 Alternatives to Ovarian Hyperstimulation and Delayed Transfer
- Section 6 Procedures before, during, and after Ovarian Stimulation
- Index
- References
Section 1 - Mild Forms of Ovarian Stimulation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 April 2022
Book contents
- Ovarian Stimulation
- Ovarian Stimulation
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- About the Editors
- Foreword
- Preface to the first edition
- Preface to the second edition
- Section 1 Mild Forms of Ovarian Stimulation
- Section 2 Ovarian Hyperstimulation for IVF
- Section 3 Difficulties and Complications of Ovarian Stimulation and Implantation
- Section 4 Non-conventional Forms Used during Ovarian Stimulation
- Section 5 Alternatives to Ovarian Hyperstimulation and Delayed Transfer
- Section 6 Procedures before, during, and after Ovarian Stimulation
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ovarian Stimulation , pp. 1 - 54Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
References
Gemzell, CA, Diczfalusy, E, Tillinger, KG. Clinical effects of human pituitary follicle stimulating hormone FSH. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1958;18:138–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gemzell, CA, Diczfalusy, E, Tillinger, KG. Human pituitary follicle stimulating hormone. 1. Clinical effects of partly purified preparation. Ciba F Coll Endocrin 1960;13:191.Google Scholar
Bettendorf, G, Apostolakis, M, Voigt, KD. Darstellung hochaktiver Gonadotropinfraktionen aus menschlichen Hypophysen und deren anwendung bei Menschen. Proceedings, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Vienna 1961:76.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, RB, Barfield, WE, Jungck, EC, Ray, AW. Induction of ovulation with MRL/41. Preliminary report. JAMA 1961;178:101–104.Google Scholar
Mitwally, MFM, Casper, RF. Aromatase inhibition: a novel method of ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Abstracts of the 16th Annual Meeting of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, 2000, Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. Use of clomiphene citrate in women. Fertil Steril 2004;82 Suppl 1:S90–S96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelson, TJ, Kroboth, PD, Cameron, WJ, et al. Single-dose pharmacokinetics of clomiphene citrate in normal volunteers. Fertil Steril 1986;46:392–396.Google Scholar
Young, SL, Opsahl, MS, Fritz, MA. Serum concentrations of enclomiphene and zuclomiphene across consecutive cycles of clomiphene citrate therapy in anovulatory infertile women. Fertil Steril 1999;71:639–644.Google Scholar
Kerin, JF, Liu, JH, Phillipou, G, Yen, SS. Evidence for a hypothalamic site of action of clomiphene citrate in women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1985;61:265–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kettel, LM, Roseff, SJ, Berga, SL, Mortola, JF, Yen, SS. Hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian response to clomiphene citrate in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 1993;59:532–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia, J, Jones, GS, Wentz, AC. The use of clomiphene citrate. Fertil Steril 1977;28:707–717.Google Scholar
Athaullah, N, Proctor, M, Johnson, NP. Oral versus injectable ovulation induction agents for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;3:CD003052.Google Scholar
Usadi, RS, Fritz, MA. Induction of ovulation with clomiphene citrate. In: Sciarra, JJ, ed. Gynecology and Obstetrics. Philadelphia: Harper & Row; 1986:Chapter 68.Google Scholar
Purvin, VA. Visual disturbance secondary to clomiphene citrate. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:482–484.Google Scholar
Maruncic, M, Casper, RF. The effect of luteal phase estrogen antagonism on luteinizing hormone pulsatility and luteal function in women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1987;64:148–152.Google Scholar
Schenker, JG, Yarkoni, S, Granat, M. Multiple pregnancies following induction of ovulation. Fertil Steril 1981;35:105–123.Google Scholar
Lipitz, S, Reichman, B, Paret, G, et al. The improving outcome of triplet pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:1279–1284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corson, SL, Dickey, RP, Gocial, B, et al. Outcome in 242 in vitro fertilization-embryo replacement or gamete intrafallopian transfer-induced pregnancies. Fertil Steril 1989;51:644–650.Google Scholar
Whittemore, AS, Harris, R, Itnyre, J. Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 US case-control studies. II. Invasive epithelial ovarian cancers in white women. Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136:1184–1203.Google Scholar
Rossing, MA, Daling, JR, Weiss, NS, Moore, DE, Self, SG. Ovarian tumors in a cohort of infertile women. N Engl J Med 1994;331:771–776.Google Scholar
Venn, A, Watson, L, Lumley, J, et al. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence after infertility and in vitro fertilisation. Lancet 1995;346:995–1000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Modan, B, Ron, E, Lerner-Geva, L, et al. Cancer incidence in a cohort of infertile women. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:1038–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosgaard, BJ, Lidegaard, O, Kjaer, SK, Schou, G, Andersen, AN. Infertility, fertility drugs, and invasive ovarian cancer: a case-control study. Fertil Steril 1997;67:1005–1012.Google Scholar
Potashnik, G, Lerner-Geva, L, Genkin, L, et al. Fertility drugs and the risk of breast and ovarian cancers: results of a long-term follow-up study. Fertil Steril 1999;71:653.Google Scholar
Pike, MC, Pearce, CL, Wu, AH. Prevention of cancers of the breast, endometrium and ovary. Oncogene 2004;23:6379–6391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khoo, SK. Cancer risks and the contraceptive pill. What is the evidence after nearly 25 years of use?Med J Aust 1986;144:185–190.Google Scholar
Fathalla, MF. Factors in the causation and incidence of ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1972;27:751–768.Google Scholar
Silva I dos, S, Wark, PA, McCormack, VA, et al. Ovulation-stimulation drugs and cancer risks: a long-term follow-up of a British cohort. Br J Cancer 2009;100:1824–1831.Google Scholar
Scaparrotta, A, Chiarelli, F, Verrotti, A. Potential teratogenic effects of clomiphene citrate. Drug Saf 2017; 40(9):761–769. doi: 10.1007/s40264-017-0546-x.Google Scholar
Reefhuis, J, Honein, MA, Schieve, LA, Rasmussen, SA; National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Use of clomiphene citrate and birth defects, National Birth Defects Prevention Study, 1997–2005. Hum Reprod 2011; 26(2):451–457. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq313.Google Scholar
Hack, M, Lunenfeld, B. Influence of hormone induction of ovulation on the fetus and newborn. Pediatr Adolesc Endocrinol 1979;5:191.Google Scholar
Correy, JF, Marsden, DE, Schokman, FC. The outcome of pregnancy resulting from clomiphene-induced ovulation. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1982;22:18–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whiteman, D, Murphy, M, Hey, K, O’Donnell, M, Goldacre, M. Reproductive factors, subfertility, and risk of neural tube defects: a case-control study based on the Oxford Record Linkage Study Register. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152:823–828.Google Scholar
Carlier, P, Choulika, S, Efthymiou, ML. Clomiphene-exposed pregnancies–analysis of 39 information requests including 25 cases with known outcome. Therapie 1996;51:532–536.Google Scholar
Tulandi, T, Martin, J, Al-Fadhli, R, et al. Congenital malformations among 911 newborns conceived after infertility treatment with letrozole or clomiphene citrate. Fertil Steril 2006;85:1761–1765.Google Scholar
Dickey, RP, Taylor, SN, Curole, DN, et al. Incidence of spontaneous abortion in clomiphene pregnancies. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2642.Google Scholar
Schieve, LA, Tatham, L, Peterson, HB, Toner, J, Jeng, G. Spontaneous abortion among pregnancies conceived using assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:959–967.Google Scholar
Hakim, RB, Gray, RH, Zacur, H. Infertility and early pregnancy loss. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:1510–1517.Google Scholar
Franks, S, Adams, J, Mason, H, Polson, D. Ovulatory disorders in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1985;12:605–632.Google Scholar
Hull, MGR. The causes of infertility and relative effectiveness of treatment. In: Templeton, AA, Drife, JO, eds. Infertility. London: Springer-Verlag; 1992:33–62.Google Scholar
Wysowski, DE. Use of fertility drugs in the United States, 1979 through 1991. Fertil Steril 1993;60:1096–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, BG, Nunley, WC Jr, Kolp, LA. Exogenous estrogen therapy for treatment of clomiphene citrate-induced cervical mucus abnormalities: is it effective? Fertil Steril 1990;54:577–579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Ami, M, Geslevich, Y, Matilsky, M, et al. Exogenous estrogen therapy concurrent with clomiphene citrate–lack of effect on serum sex hormone levels and endometrial thickness. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1994;37(3):180–182.Google Scholar
Gonen, Y, Casper, RF. Sonographic determination of a possible adverse effect of clomiphene citrate on endometrial growth. Hum Reprod 1990;5:670–674.Google Scholar
Nelson, LM, Hershlag, A, Kurl, RS, Hall, JL, Stillman, RJ. Clomiphene citrate directly impairs endometrial receptivity in the mouse. Fertil Steril 1990;53:727–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, TC, Warren, MA, Murphy, C, Sargeant, S, Cooke, ID. A prospective, randomised, cross-over study comparing the effects of clomiphene citrate and cyclofenil on endometrial morphology in the luteal phase of normal, fertile women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:1008–1013.Google Scholar
Hammond, MG, Halme, JK, Talbert, LM. Factors affecting the pregnancy rate in clomiphene citrate induction of ovulation. Obstet Gynecol 1983;62:196–202.Google ScholarPubMed
Sereepapong, W, Suwajanakorn, S, Triratanachat, S, et al. Effects of clomiphene citrate on the endometrium of regularly cycling women. Fertil Steril 2000;73:287–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, CC, Kuo, HC, Wang, ST, Huang, KE. Interference with uterine blood flow by clomiphene citrate in women with unexplained infertility. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:917–921.Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Y, Hosoi, Y, Atlas, SJ, Wallach, EE. Effect of clomiphene citrate on in vitro ovulated ova. Fertil Steril 1986;45:800–804.Google Scholar
Shimoya, K, Tomiyama, T, Hashimoto, K, et al. Endometrial development was improved by transdermal estradiol in patients treated with clomiphene citrate. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1999;47:251–254.Google Scholar
Gerli, S, Gholami, H, Manna, C, et al. Use of ethinyl estradiol to reverse the antiestrogenic effects of clomiphene citrate in patients undergoing intrauterine insemination: a comparative, randomized study. Fertil Steril 2000;73:85–89.Google Scholar
Wu, CH, Winkel, CA. The effect of therapy initiation day on clomiphene citrate therapy. Fertil Steril 1989;52:564–568.Google Scholar
Saleh, A, Biljan, MM, Tan, SSSL, Tulandi, T. Effects of tamoxifen (Tx) on endometrial thickness and pregnancy rates in women undergoing superovulation with clomiphene citrate (CC) and intrauterine insemination (IUI). Fertil Steril 2000;74:S1–S90.Google Scholar
Unfer, V, Casini, ML, Costabile, L, et al. High dose of phytoestrogens can reverse the antiestrogenic effects of clomiphene citrate on the endometrium in patients undergoing intrauterine insemination: a randomized trial. J Soc Gynecol Investig 2004;11:323–328.Google Scholar
Cole, PA, Robinson, CH. Mechanism and inhibition of cytochrome P-450 aromatase. J Med Chem 1990;33:2933–2942.Google Scholar
Santen, RJ, Manni, A, Harvey, H, Redmond, C. Endocrine treatment of breast cancer in women. Endocrine Rev 1990;11:1–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winer, EP, Hudis, C, Burstein, HJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on the use of aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: status report 2002. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3317–3327.Google Scholar
Buzdar, A, Jonat, W, Howell, A, et al. Anastrozole, a potent and selective aromatase inhibitor, versus megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of overview analysis of two phase III trials. Arimidex Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:2000–2011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marty, M, Gershanovich, M, Campos, B, et al. Aromatase inhibitors, a new potent, selective aromatase inhibitor superior to aminoglutethimide (AG) in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with antioestrogens. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997;16:156.Google Scholar
Mitwally, MFM, Casper, RF. Aromatase inhibition: a novel method of ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Reprod Technol 2000;10:244–247.Google Scholar
Mitwally, MF, Casper, RF. Use of an aromatase inhibitor for induction of ovulation in patients with an inadequate response to clomiphene citrate. Fertil Steril 2001;75:305–309.Google Scholar
Mitwally, MF, Casper, RF. Single-dose administration of an aromatase inhibitor for ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 2005;83:229–231.Google Scholar
Mitwally, MF, Casper, RF. Aromatase inhibition reduces the dose of gonadotropin required for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. J Soc Gynecol Investig 2004;11:406–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitwally, MF, Casper, RF. Aromatase inhibition improves ovarian response to follicle-stimulating hormone in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2002;77:776–780.Google Scholar
Al-Omari, WR, Sulaiman, WR, Al-Hadithi, N. Comparison of two aromatase inhibitors in women with clomiphene-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;85:289–291.Google Scholar
Fatemi, HM, Kolibianakis, E, Tournaye, H, et al. Clomiphene citrate versus letrozole for ovarian stimulation: a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:543–546.Google Scholar
Healey, S, Tan, SL, Tulandi, T, Biljan, MM. Effects of letrozole on superovulation with gonadotropins in women undergoing intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 2003;80:1325–1329.Google Scholar
Mason, AJ, Berkemeier, LM, Schmelzer, CH, et al. Activin B: precursor sequences, genomic structure and in vitro activities. Mol Endocrinol 1989;3:1352–1358.Google Scholar
Roberts, V, Meunier, H, Vaughan, J, et al. Production and regulation of inhibin subunits in pituitary gonadotropes. Endocrinology 1989;124:552–554.Google Scholar
Weil, SJ, Vendola, K, Zhou, J, et al. Androgen receptor gene expression in the primate ovary: cellular localization, regulation, and functional correlations. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1989;837:2479–2485.Google Scholar
Weil, S, Vendola, K, Zhou, J, Bondy, CA. Androgen and follicle-stimulating hormone interactions in primate ovarian follicle development. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:2951–2956.Google Scholar
Vendola, KA, Zhou, J, Adesanya, OO, Weil, SJ, Bondy, CA. Androgens stimulate early stages of follicular growth in the primate ovary. J Clin Invest 1998;101:2622–2629.Google Scholar
Vendola, K, Zhou, J, Wang, J, et al. Androgens promote oocyte insulin-like growth factor I expression and initiation of follicle development in the primate ovary. Biol Reprod 1999;61:353–357.Google Scholar
Giudice, LC. Insulin-like growth factors and ovarian follicular development. Endocr Rev 1992;13:641–669.Google Scholar
Package insert of letrozole Femara®.Google Scholar
Package insert of anastrozole Arimidex®.Google Scholar
Mitwally, MF, Casper, RF. Aromatase inhibitors in ovulation induction. Semin Reprod Med 2004;22:61–78.Google Scholar
Rubin, GL, Zhao, Y, Kalus, AM, Simpson, ER. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma ligands inhibit estrogen biosynthesis in human breast adipose tissue: possible implications for breast cancer therapy. Cancer Res 2000;60:1604–1608.Google Scholar
Mitwally, MF, Witchel, SF, Casper, RF. Troglitazone: a possible modulator of ovarian steroidogenesis. J Soc Gynecol Investig 2002;9:163–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nirmala, PB, Thampan, RV. Ubiquitination of the rat uterine estrogen receptor: dependence on estradiol. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1995;213:24–31.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, CR, Roy, T, Cox, BE. Mechanisms modulating estrogen-induced uterine vasodilation. Vascul Pharmacol 2002;38:115–125.Google Scholar
Vignali, M, Infantino, M, Matrone, R, et al. Endometriosis: novel etiopathogenetic concepts and clinical perspectives. Fertil Steril 2002;78:665–678.Google Scholar
Oktay, K, Buyuk, E, Libertella, N, Akar, M, Rosenwaks, Z. Fertility preservation in breast cancer patients: a prospective controlled comparison of ovarian stimulation with tamoxifen and letrozole for embryo cryopreservation. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4347–4353.Google Scholar
Oktay, K. Further evidence on the safety and success of ovarian stimulation with letrozole and tamoxifen in breast cancer patients undergoing in vitro fertilization to cryopreserve their embryos for fertility preservation. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3858–3859.Google Scholar
Hamilton, A, Piccart, M. The third-generation non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors: a review of their clinical benefits in the second-line hormonal treatment of advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1999;10:377–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goss, PE. Risks versus benefits in the clinical application of aromatase inhibitors. Endocr Relat Cancer 1999;6:325–332.Google Scholar
Mitwally, MF, Biljan, MM, Casper, RF. Pregnancy outcome after the use of an aromatase inhibitor for ovarian stimulation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:381–386.Google Scholar
Tulandi, T, Al-Fadhli, R, Kabli, N, et al. Congenital malformations among 911 newborns conceived after infertility treatment with letrozole or clomiphene citrate. Fertil Steril 2006;85:1761–1765.Google Scholar
Hoffman, JIE. Incidence of congenital heart disease: I. Postnatal incidence. Pediatr Cardiol 1995;16:103.Google Scholar
Badawy, A, Shokeir, T, Allam, AF, Abdelhady, H. Pregnancy outcome after ovulation induction with aromatase inhibitors or clomiphene citrate in unexplained infertility. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009;88:187–191.Google Scholar
Franik, S, Eltrop, SM, Kremer, JA, Kiesel, L, Farquhar, C. Aromatase inhibitors (letrozole) for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;5:CD010287. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010287.pub3.Google Scholar
Legro, RS, Brzyski, RG, Diamond, MP, et al. Letrozole versus clomiphene for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2014;371:119–129.Google Scholar
References
Balen, AH, Rutherford, AJ. Managing anovulatory infertility and polycystic ovary syndrome. BMJ 2007;335:663–666.Google Scholar
Rowe, PJ, Combaire, FH, Hargreave, TB, et al. WHO Manual for the Standardized Investigation and Diagnosis of the Infertile Couple. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
Van Santbrink, EJ, Hop, WC, Fauser, BC. Classification of nomogonadotrophic anovulatory infertility: polycystic ovaries diagnosed by ultrasound versus endocrine characteristics of polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 1997;67:453–458.Google Scholar
Stein, IF, Leventhal, ML. Amenorrhea associated with bilateral polycystic ovaries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1935;29:181–191.Google Scholar
Zawadski, JK, Dunaif, A. Diagnostic criteria for polycystic ovary syndrome: towards a rational approach. In: Dunaif, A, Givens, JR, Haseltine, F, eds. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Boston: Blackwell Scientific; 1992:377–384.Google Scholar
Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored PCOS consensus workshop group. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Hum Reprod 2004;19:41–47.Google Scholar
Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored PCOS consensus workshop group. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Fertil Steril 2004;81:19–25.Google Scholar
Azziz, R, Carmina, E, Dewailly, D, et al.; Androgen Excess Society. Positions statement: criteria for defining polycystic ovary syndrome as a predominantly hyperandrogenic syndrome: an Androgen Excess Society guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;91:4237–4245.Google Scholar
Franks, S. Controversy in clinical endocrinology: diagnosis of polycystic ovarian syndrome: in defense of the Rotterdam criteria. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;91:786–789.Google Scholar
ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Mono-ovulatory cycles: a key goal in profertility programmes. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:263–274.Google Scholar
Kiddy, DS, Sharp, PS, White, DM, et al. Differences in clinical and endocrine features between obese and non-obese subjects with polycystic ovary syndrome: an analysis of 263 consecutive cases. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1990;32:213–220.Google Scholar
Franks, S, Kiddy, D, Sharp, P, et al. Obesity and polycystic ovary syndrome. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1991;626:201–206.Google Scholar
Rich-Edwards, JW, Spiegelman, D, Garland, M, et al. Physical activity, body mass index, and ovulatory disorder infertility. Epidemiology 2002;13:184–190.Google Scholar
Norman, RJ, Davies, MJ, Lord, J, Moran, LJ. The role of lifestyle modification in polycystic ovary syndrome. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2002;13:251–257.Google Scholar
Wang, JX, Davies, MJ, Norman, RJ. Obesity increases the risk of spontaneous abortion during infertility treatment. Obes Res 2002;10:551–554.Google Scholar
Dietl, J. Maternal obesity and complications during pregnancy. J Perinat Med 2005;33:100–105.Google Scholar
Boomsma, CM, Fauser, BC, Macklon, NS. Pregnancy complications in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Semin Reprod Med 2008;26:72–84.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, O, Steegers-Theunissen, RP, Smedts, HP, et al. A more atherogenic serum lipoprotein profile is present in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a case-control study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93:470–476.Google Scholar
Kiddy, DS, Hamilton-Fairley, D, Bush, A, et al. Improvement in endocrine and ovarian function during dietary treatment of obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1992;36:105–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, AM, Thornley, B, Tomlinson, L, Galletley, C, Norman, RJ. Weight loss in obese infertile women results in improvement in reproductive outcome for all forms of fertility treatment. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1502–1505.Google Scholar
Hoeger, KM. Role of lifestyle modification in the management of polycystic ovary syndrome. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;20:293–310.Google Scholar
Sjöström, L, Lindroos, AK, Peltonen, M, et al.; Swedish Obese Subjects Study Scientific Group. Lifestyle, diabetes, and cardiovascular risk factors 10 years after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2683–2693.Google Scholar
Wadden, TA, Berkowitz, RI, Womble, LG, et al. Randomized trial of lifestyle modification and pharmacotherapy for obesity. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2111–2120.Google Scholar
Balen, AH, Dresner, M, Scott, EM, et al. Should obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome receive treatment for infertility? BMJ 2006;332:434–435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, SM, Fleming, RF. The preconceptual contraception paradigm: obesity and infertility. Hum Reprod 2007;22:912–915.Google Scholar
Cooper, GS, Baird, DD, Hulka, BS, et al. Follicle-stimulating hormone concentrations in relation to active and passive smoking. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:407–411.Google Scholar
El-Nemr, A, Al-Shawaf, T, Sabatini, L, et al. Effect of smoking on ovarian reserve and ovarian stimulation in in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1998;13:2192–2198.Google Scholar
Freour, T, Masson, D, Mirallie, S, et al. Active smoking compromises IVF outcome and affects ovarian reserve. Reprod Biomed Online 2008;16:96–102.Google Scholar
Sammel, MD, Freeman, EW, Liu, Z, Lin, H, Guo, W. Factors that influence entry into stages of the menopausal transition. Menopause 2009;16:1218–1227.Google Scholar
Sharara, FI, Beatse, SN, Leonardi, MR, et al. Cigarette smoking accelerates the development of diminished ovarian reserve as evidenced by the CC challenge test. Fertil Steril 1995;62:257–262.Google Scholar
Winter, E, Wang, J, Davies, MJ, Norman, R. Early pregnancy loss following assisted reproductive technology treatment. Hum Reprod 2002;17:3220–3223.Google Scholar
Saraiya, M, Berg, CJ, Kendrick, JS, et al. Cigarette smoking as a risk factor for ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:493–498.Google Scholar
Moran, LJ, Noakes, M, Clifton, PM, et al. Dietary composition in restoring reproductive and metabolic physiology in overweight women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:812–819.Google Scholar
Stamets, K, Taylor, DS, Kunselman, A, et al. A randomized trial of the effects of two types of short-term hypocaloric diets on weight loss in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 2004;81:630–637.Google Scholar
Reaven, GM. The insulin resistance syndrome: definition and dietary approaches to treatment. Annu Rev Nutr 2005;25:391–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crosignani, PG, Colombo, M, Vegetti, W, et al. Overweight and obese anovulatory patients with polycystic ovaries: parallel improvements in anthropometric indices, ovarian physiology and fertility rate induced by diet. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1928–1932.Google Scholar
Moran, LJ, Brinkworth, G, Noakes, M, Norman, RJ. Effects of lifestyle modification in polycystic ovarian syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;12:569–578.Google Scholar
Knowler, WC, Barrett-Connor, E, Fowler, SE, et al.; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346:393–403.Google Scholar
Wiksten-Almströmer, M, Hirschberg, AL, Hagenfeldt, K. Prospective follow-up of menstrual disorders in adolescence and prognostic factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008;87:1162–1168.Google Scholar
Filicori, M. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists. A guide to use and selection. Drugs 1994;48:41–58.Google Scholar
Beckers, NG, Platteau, P, Eijkemans, MJ, et al. The early luteal phase administration of estrogen and progesterone does not induce premature luteolysis in normo-ovulatory women. Eur J Endocrinol 2006;155:355–363.Google Scholar
Mitwally, MF, Casper, RF. Use of an aromatase inhibitor for induction of ovulation in patients with an inadequate response to clomiphene citrate. Fertil Steril 2001;75:305–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teede, HJ, Misso, ML, Costello, MF, et al. Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 2018;110:364–379.Google Scholar
Garcia-Velasco, JA, Moreno, L, Pacheco, A, et al. The aromatase inhibitor letrozole increases the concentration of intraovarian androgens and improves in vitro fertilization outcome in low responder patients: a pilot study. Fertil Steril 2005;84:82–87.Google Scholar
Biljan, MM, Hemmings, R, Brassard, N. The outcome of 150 babies following the treatment with letrozole or letrozole and gonadotropins. Fertil Steril 2005;84:O-231 abstract 1033.Google Scholar
Tulandi, T, Martin, J, Al-Fadhli, R, et al. Congenital malformations among 911 newborns conceived after infertility treatment with letrozole or clomiphene citrate. Fertil Steril 2006;85:1761–1765.Google Scholar
Tatsumi, T, Jwa, SC, Kuwahara, A, et al. No increased risk of major congenital anomalies or adverse pregnancy or neonatal outcomes following letrozole use in ART. Hum Reprod 2017;32:125–132.Google Scholar
Wang, R, Kim, BV, van Wely, M, et al. Treatment strategies for women with WHO group II anovulation: systemic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2017;356:j138.Google Scholar
Pildes, RB. Induction of ovulation with clomiphene. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1965;91:466–479.Google Scholar
Dehbashi, S, Vafaei, H, Parsanezhad, MD, Alborzi, S. Time of initiation of clomiphene citrate and pregnancy rate in polycystic ovarian syndrome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006;93:44–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moll, E, Bossuyt, PM, Korevaar, JC, Lambalk, CB, van der Veen, F. Effect of clomifene citrate plus metformin and clomifene citrate plus placebo on induction of ovulation in women with newly diagnosed polycystic ovary syndrome: randomised double blind clinical trial. BMJ 2006;332:1485.Google Scholar
Legro, RS, Barnhart, HX, Schlaff, WD, et al.; Cooperative Multicenter Reproductive Medicine Network. Clomiphene, metformin, or both for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2007;356:551–566.Google Scholar
Daly, DC, Walters, CA, Soto-Albors, CE, Tohan, N, Riddick, DH. A randomized study of dexamethasone in ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate. Fertil Steril 1984;41:844–848.Google Scholar
Kousta, E, White, DM, Franks, S. Modern use of clomiphene citrate in induction of ovulation. Hum Reprod Update 1997;3:359–365.Google Scholar
Imani, B, Eijkemans, MJ, te Velde, ER, Habbema, JD, Fauser, BC. Predictors of patients remaining anovulatory during clomiphene citrate induction of ovulation in normogonadotropic oligoamenorrheic infertility. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998;83:2361–2365.Google Scholar
Homburg, R. Clomiphene citrate–end of an era? A mini-review. Hum Reprod 2005;20:2043–2051.Google Scholar
Rossing, MA, Daling, JR, Weiss, NS, Moore, DE, Self, SG. Ovarian tumors in a cohort of infertile women. N Engl J Med 1994;331:771–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roumen, FJ, Doesburg, WH, Rolland, R. Treatment of infertile women with a deficient postcoital test with two antiestrogens: clomiphene and tamoxifen. Fertil Steril 1984;41:237–243.Google Scholar
Boostanfar, R. A prospective randomized trial comparing clomiphene citrate with tamoxifen citrate for ovulation induction. Fertil Steril 2001;75:1024–1026.Google Scholar
Bayram, N, van Wely, M, van Der Veen, F. Recombinant FSH versus urinary gonadotrophins or recombinant FSH for ovulation induction in subfertility associated with polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;2:CD002121.Google Scholar
van Santbrink, EJ, Fauser, BC. Urinary follicle-stimulating hormone for normogonadotropic clomiphene-resistant anovulatory infertility: prospective, randomized comparison between low dose step-up and step-down dose regimens. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1997;82:3597–3602.Google Scholar
Christin-Maitre, S, Hugues, JN; Recombinant FSH Study Group. A comparative randomized multicentric study comparing the step-up versus step-down protocol in polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1626–1631.Google Scholar
van Santbrink, EJ, Eijkemans, MJ, Laven, JS, Fauser, BC. Patient-tailored conventional ovulation induction algorithms in anovulatory infertility. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2005;16:381–389.Google Scholar
Mulders, AG, Eijkemans, MJ, Imani, B, et al. Prediction of chances for success or complications in gonadotrophin ovulation induction in normogonadotrophic anovulatory infertility. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:48–56.Google Scholar
Fauser, BC, Devroey, P, Macklon, NS. Multiple birth resulting from ovarian stimulation for subfertility treatment. Lancet 2005;365:1807–1816.Google Scholar
Aboulghar, MA, Mansour, RT. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: classifications and critical analysis of preventive measures. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:275–289.Google Scholar
De Geyter, C, De Geyter, M, Castro, E, et al. Experience with transvaginal ultrasound-guided aspiration of supernumerary follicles for the prevention of multiple pregnancies after ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 1996;65:1163–1168.Google Scholar
la Marca, A, Morgante, G, Palumbo, M, et al. Insulin-lowering treatment reduces aromatase activity in response to follicle-stimulating hormone in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 2002;78:1234–1239.Google Scholar
Coffler, MS, Patel, K, Dahan, MH, et al. Enhanced granulosa cell responsiveness to follicle-stimulating hormone during insulin infusion in women with polycystic ovary syndrome treated with pioglitazone. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:5624–5631.Google Scholar
Lord, JM, Flight, IH, Norman, RJ. Metformin in polycystic ovary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2003;327:951–953.Google Scholar
Palomba, S, Orio, F Jr., Nardo, LG, et al. Metformin administration versus laparoscopic ovarian diathermy in clomiphene citrate-resistant women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a prospective parallel randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004;89:4801–4809.Google Scholar
Morley, LC, Tang, T, Yasmin, E, Norman, RJ, Balen, AH. Insulin-sensitising drugs (metformin, rosiglitazone, pioglitazone, D-chiro-inositol) for women with polycystic ovary syndrome, oligo amenorrhoea and subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;11:CD003053.Google Scholar
Legro, RS, Zaino, RJ, Demers, LM, et al. The effects of metformin and rosiglitazone, alone and in combination, on the ovary and endometrium in polycystic ovary syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:402.e1–402.e10; discussion 402.e10.Google Scholar
Glueck, CJ, Goldenberg, N, Pranikoff, J, et al. Height, weight, and motor-social development during the first 18 months of life in 126 infants born to 109 mothers with polycystic ovary syndrome who conceived on and continued metformin through pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1323–1330.Google Scholar
Pundir, J, Psaroudakis, D, Savnur, P, et al. Inositol treatment of anovulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. BJOG 2018;125:299–308.Google Scholar
Stein, IF, Cohen, MR, Elson, R. Results of bilateral ovarian wedge resection in 47 cases of sterility; 20 year end results; 75 cases of bilateral polycystic ovaries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1949;58:267–274.Google Scholar
Mahesh, VB, Greenblatt, RB. Urinary steroid excretion patterns in hirsutism. II. Effect of ovarian stimulation with human pituitary FSH on urinary 17-ketosteroids. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1964;24:1293–1302.Google Scholar
Gjönnaess, H. Polycystic ovarian syndrome treated by ovarian electrocautery through the laparoscope. Fertil Steril 1984;41:20–25.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, EM, Casper, RF. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Prog Clin Biol Res 1993;381:129–138.Google Scholar
Farquhar, C, Lilford, RJ, Marjoribanks, J, et al. Laparoscopic ‘drilling’ by diathermy or laser for ovulation induction in anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;18:CD001122.Google Scholar
Youssef, H, Atallah, MM. Unilateral ovarian drilling in polycystic ovarian syndrome: a prospective randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;15:457–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saleh, AM, Khalil, HS. Review of nonsurgical and surgical treatment and the role of insulin-sensitizing agents in the management of infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004;83:614–621.Google Scholar
Seow, KM, Juan, CC, Hwang, JL, Ho, LT. Laparoscopic surgery in polycystic ovary syndrome: reproductive and metabolic effects. Semin Reprod Med 2008;26:101–110.Google Scholar
Overbeek, A, Kuijper, EA, Hendriks, ML, et al. Clomiphene citrate resistance in relation to follicle-stimulating hormone receptor Ser680Ser-polymorphism in polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod 2009;24:2007–2013.Google Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril 2006;86:S178–S183.Google Scholar
Dickey, RP, Taylor, SN, Lu, PY, et al. Risk factors for high-order multiple pregnancy and multiple birth after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: results of 4,062 intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertil Steril 2005;83:671–683.Google Scholar
White, DM, Polson, DW, Kiddy, D, et al. Induction of ovulation with low-dose gonadotropins in polycystic ovary syndrome: an analysis of 109 pregnancies in 225 women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1996;81:3821–3824.Google Scholar
Mulders, AM, Laven, JS, Eijkemans, MJ, Hughes, EG, Fauser, BC. Patient predictors for outcome of gonadotrophin ovulation induction in women with normogonadotrophic anovulatory infertility: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9(5):429–449.Google Scholar
Franik, S, Eltrop, SM, Kremer, JAM, Kiesel, L, Farquhar, C. Aromatase inhibitors for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;5:CD010287.Google Scholar
Eijkemans, MJ, Imani, B, Mulders, AG, Habbema, JD, Fauser, BC. High singleton live birth rate following classical ovulation induction in normogonadotrophic anovulatory infertility (WHO 2). Hum Reprod 2003;18:2357–2362.Google Scholar
Imani, B, Eijkemans, MJ, te Velde, ER, Habbema, JD, Fauser, BC. A nomogram to predict the probability of live birth after clomiphene citrate induction of ovulation in normogonadotropic oligoamenorrheic infertility. Fertil Steril 2002;77:91–97.Google Scholar
References
Cohlen, BJ. Should we continue performing intrauterine inseminations in the year 2004? Gynecol Obstet Invest 2005;59:3–13.Google Scholar
Cohlen, BJ, van Dop, P. Prevention of multiple pregnancies after non-in vitro fertilization treatment. In: Gerris, J, Olivennes, F, de Sutter, P, eds. Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Quality and Safety. London, UK: The Parthenon Publishing Group London; 2004:39–48.Google Scholar
Fauser, BJCM, Devroey, P, Macklon, NS. Multiple birth resulting from ovarian stimulation for subfertility treatment. Lancet 2005;365:5000.Google Scholar
Bensdorp, AJ, Tjon-Kon-Fat, RI, Bossuyt, PM, et al. Prevention of multiple pregnancies in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility; randomised controlled trial of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. BMJ 2015;350:g7771.Google Scholar
Farquhar, CM, Liu, E, Armstrong, S, et al. Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation versus expectant management for unexplained infertility (TUI): a pragmatic, open-label, randomized, controlled two-centre trial. Lancet 2018;391(10119):441–450.Google Scholar
Werbrouck, E, Spiessens, C, Meuleman, C, D’Hooghe, T. No difference in cycle pregnancy rate and in cumulative live-birth rate between women with surgically treated minimal to mild endometriosis and women with unexplained infertility after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 2006;86:566–571.Google Scholar
Weiss, NS, Nahuis, MJ, Bordewijk, E, et al. Gonadotrophins versus clomiphene citrate with or without intrauterine insemination in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomifene failure (M-OVIN); a randomised, two-by-two factorial trial. Lancet 2018;391(10122):758–765.Google Scholar
Steures, P, van der Steeg, JW, Verhoeve, HR, et al. Does ovarian hyperstimulation in intrauterine insemination for cervical factor subfertility improve pregnancy rates? Hum Reprod 2004;19:2263–2266.Google Scholar
Cohlen, BJ, te Velde, ER, van Kooij, RJ, Looman, CW, Habbema, JD. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination for treating male subfertility: a controlled study. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1553–1558.Google Scholar
Cohlen, B, Bijkerk, A, Van der Poel, S, Ombelet, W. IUI: review and systematic assessment of evidence that supports global recommendations. Hum Reprod Update 2018;24(3):300–319.Google Scholar
Ayeleke, RO, Asseler, JD, Cohlen, BJ, Veltman-Verhulst, SM. Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;3:CD001838.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, S, Harrild, K, Mollison, J, et al. Clomifene citrate or unstimulated intrauterine insemination compared with expectant management for unexplained infertility: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2008;337:a716.Google Scholar
Steures, P, van der Steeg, JW, Hompes, PG, et al.; Collaborative Effort on the Clinical Evaluation in Reproductive Medicine. Intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation versus expectant management for couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet 2006;368:216–221.Google Scholar
Cantineau, AE, Cohlen, BJ, Heineman, MJ. Ovarian stimulation protocols (anti-oestrogens, gonadotrophins with and without GnRH agonists/antagonists) for intrauterine insemination (IUI) in women with subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2:CD005356.Google Scholar
Danhof, NA, van Wely, M, Repping, S, et al.; SUPER study group. Follicle stimulating hormone versus clomiphene citrate in intrauterine insemination for unexplained subfertility: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2018;33(10):1866–1874.Google Scholar
Requena, A, Herrero, J, Landeras, J, et al.; Reproductive Endocrinology Interest Group of the Spanish Society of Fertility. Use of letrozole in assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2008;14:571–582.Google Scholar
Cantineau, AE, Cohlen, BJ; Dutch IUI Study Group. The prevalence and influence of luteinizing hormone surges in stimulated cycles combined with intrauterine insemination during a prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 2007;88:107–112.Google Scholar
Green, K, Zolton, JR, Schermerhorn, SMV, et al. Progesterone luteal support after ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2017;107(4):924–933.Google Scholar
Cantineau, AEP, Janssen, MJ, Cohlen, BJ, Allersma, T. Synchronised approach for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;12:CD006942.Google Scholar
Aydin, Y, Hassa, H, Oge, T, Tokgoz, VY. A randomized study of simultaneous hCG administration with intrauterine insemination in stimulated cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 2013;170(2):444–448.Google Scholar
Andersen, AG, Als-Nielsen, B, Hornnes, PJ, Franch Andersen, L. Time interval from human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) injection to follicular rupture. Hum Reprod 1995;10:3202–3205.Google Scholar
Lewis, V, Queenan, J Jr., Hoeger, K, Stevens, J, Guzick, DS. Clomiphene citrate monitoring for intrauterine insemination timing: a randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2006;85:401–406.Google Scholar
Cantineau, AE, Heineman, MJ, Cohlen, BJ. Single versus double intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;1:CD003854.Google Scholar
Liu, W, Gong, F, Luo, K, Lu, G. Comparing the pregnancy rates of one versus two intrauterine inseminations (IUIs) in male factor and idiopathic infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 2006;2:75–79.Google Scholar
Martinez, AR, Bernadus, RE, Voorhorst, FJ, Vermeiden, JP, Schoemaker, J. A controlled study of human chorionic gonadotrophin induced ovulation versus urinary luteinizing hormone surge for timing of intrauterine insemination. Hum Reprod 1991;6:1247–1251.Google Scholar
Aboulghar, M, Mansour, R, Serour, G, et al. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination for treatment of unexplained infertility should be limited to a maximum of three trials. Fertil Steril 2001;75:88–91.Google Scholar
Custers, IM, Steures, P, Hompes, P, et al. Intrauterine insemination: how many cycles should we perform? Hum Reprod 2008;23:885–888.Google Scholar
van Rumste, MM, Custers, IM, van der Veen, F, et al. The influence of the number of follicles on pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2008;14:563–570.Google Scholar
Diamond, MP, Legro, RS, Coutifaris, C, et al.; NICHD Reproductive Medicine Network. Letrozole, gonadotropin, or clomiphene for unexplained infertility. N Engl J Med 2015;373(13):1230–1240.Google Scholar
Dickey, RP, Taylor, SN, Lu, PY, et al. Risk factors for high-order multiple pregnancy and multiple birth after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: results of 4,062 intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertil Steril 2005;83:671–683.Google Scholar
Boomsma, CM, Heineman, MJ, Cohlen, BJ, Farquhar, C. Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;4:CD004507.Google Scholar
Tjon-Kon-Fat, RI, Bensdorp, AJ, Bossuyt, PM, et al. Is IVF-served two different ways-more cost-effective than IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation? Hum Reprod 2015;30(10):2331–2339.Google Scholar
Goverde, AJ, McDonnell, J, Vermeiden, JP, et al. Intrauterine insemination or in-vitro fertilisation in idiopathic subfertility and male subfertility: a randomised trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet 2000;355:13–18.Google Scholar
References
Sunkara, SK, Rittenberg, V, Raine-Fenning, N, et al. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod 2011;26(7):1768–1774.Google Scholar
Steward, RG, Lan, L, Shah, AA, et al. Oocyte number as a predictor for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and live birth: an analysis of 256,381 in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2014;101(4):967–973.Google Scholar
Drakopoulos, P, Blockeel, C, Stoop, D, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod 2016;31(2):370–376.Google Scholar
Polyzos, NP, Drakopoulos, P, Parra, J, et al. Cumulative live birth rates according to the number of oocytes retrieved after the first ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a multicenter multinational analysis including approximately 15,000 women. Fertil Steril 2018;110(4):661.e1–670.e1.Google Scholar
Smeltzer, S, Acharya, K, Truong, T, Pieper, C, Muasher, S. Clinical pregnancy and live birth increase significantly with every additional blastocyst up to five and decline after that: an analysis of 16,666 first fresh single-blastocyst transfers from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry. Fertil Steril 2019;112(5):866.e1–873.e1.Google Scholar
Magnusson, A, Wennerholm, UB, Källén, K, et al. The association between the number of oocytes retrieved for IVF, perinatal outcome and obstetric complications. Hum Reprod 2018;33(10):1939–1947.Google Scholar
Datta, AK, Campbell, S, Felix, N, Singh, JSH, Nargund, G. Oocyte or embryo number needed to optimize live birth and cumulative live birth rates in mild stimulation IVF cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2021;S1472-6483(21)00096-1. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.02.010.Google Scholar
Nargund, G, Chian, RC. ISMAAR: leading the global agenda for a more physiological, patient-centred, accessible and safer approaches in ART. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013;30(2):155–156.Google Scholar
Nargund, G, Fauser, BC, Macklon, NS, et al.; Rotterdam ISMAAR Consensus Group on Terminology for Ovarian Stimulation for IVF. The ISMAAR proposal on terminology for ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod 2007;22(11):2801–2804.Google Scholar
Zegers-Hochschild, F, Adamson, GD, de Mouzon, J, et al.; International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology; World Health Organization. The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Revised Glossary on ART Terminology, 2009. Hum Reprod 2009;24(11):2683–2687.Google Scholar
de Klerk, C, Macklon, NS, Heijnen, EM, et al. The psychological impact of IVF failure after two or more cycles of IVF with a mild versus standard treatment strategy. Hum Reprod 2007;22(9):2554–2558.Google Scholar
Verberg, MF, Eijkemans, MJ, Heijnen, EM, et al. Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod 2008;23(9):2050–2055.Google Scholar
Seyhan, A, Ata, B, Polat, M, et al. Severe early ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome following GnRH agonist trigger with the addition of 1500 IU hCG. Hum Reprod 2013;28(9):2522–2528.Google Scholar
Valbuena, D, Martin, J, de Pablo, JL, et al. Increasing levels of estradiol are deleterious to embryonic implantation because they directly affect the embryo. Fertil Steril 2001;76(5):962–968.Google Scholar
Labarta, E, Martínez-Conejero, JA, Alamá, P, et al. Endometrial receptivity is affected in women with high circulating progesterone levels at the end of the follicular phase: a functional genomics analysis. Hum Reprod 2011;26(7):1813–1825.Google Scholar
Haouzi, D, Assou, S, Dechanet, C, et al. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization alters endometrial receptivity in humans: protocol effects. Biol Reprod 2010;82(4):679–686.Google Scholar
Kato, K, Takehara, Y, Segawa, T, et al. Minimal ovarian stimulation combined with elective single embryo transfer policy: age-specific results of a large, single-centre, Japanese cohort. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012;10:35.Google Scholar
Zhang, JJ, Merhi, Z, Yang, M, et al. Minimal stimulation IVF vs conventional IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;214(1):96.e1–96.e8.Google Scholar
Hojgaard, A, Ingerslev, HJ, Dinesen, J. Friendly IVF: patient opinions. Hum Reprod 2001;16(7):1391–1396.Google Scholar
Aleyamma, TK, Kamath, MS, Muthukumar, K, Mangalaraj, AM, George, K. Affordable ART: a different perspective. Hum Reprod 2011;26(12):3312–3318.Google Scholar
Paulson, RJ, Fauser, BCJM, Vuong, LTN, Doody, K. Can we modify assisted reproductive technology practice to broaden reproductive care access? Fertil Steril 2016;105(5):1138–1143.Google Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: ASRM@asrm.org. Comparison of pregnancy rates for poor responders using IVF with mild ovarian stimulation versus conventional IVF: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2018;109(6):993–999.Google Scholar
Morgia, F, Sbracia, M, Schimberni, M, et al. A controlled trial of natural cycle versus microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog flare cycles in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2004;81(6):1542–1547.Google Scholar
Kim, CH, Kim, SR, Cheon, YP, et al. Minimal stimulation using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone versus GnRH antagonist multiple-dose protocol in low responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2009;92(6):2082–2084.Google Scholar
Lainas, TG, Sfontouris, IA, Venetis, CA, et al. Live birth rates after modified natural cycle compared with high-dose FSH stimulation using GnRH antagonists in poor responders. Hum Reprod 2015;30(10):2321–2330.Google Scholar
Datta, AK, Campbell, S, Felix, N, Nargund, G. Accumulation of embryos over 3 natural modified IVF (ICSI) cycles followed by transfer to improve the outcome of poor responders. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2019;11(1):77–84.Google Scholar
Baart, EB, Martini, E, Eijkemans, MJ, et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007;22(4):980–988.Google Scholar
von Wolff, M, Kollmann, Z, Flück, CE, et al. Gonadotrophin stimulation for in vitro fertilization significantly alters the hormone milieu in follicular fluid: a comparative study between natural cycle IVF and conventional IVF. Hum Reprod 2014;29(5):1049–1057.Google Scholar
Arce, JC, Andersen, AN, Fernández-Sánchez, M, et al. Ovarian response to recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone: a randomized, antimullerian hormone-stratified, dose-response trial in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2014;102(6):1633.e5–1640.e5.Google Scholar
Patrizio, P, Sakkas, D. From oocyte to baby: a clinical evaluation of the biological efficiency of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2009;91(4):1061–1066.Google Scholar
Silber, SJ, Kato, K, Aoyama, N, et al. Intrinsic fertility of human oocytes. Fertil Steril 2017;107(5):1232–1237.Google Scholar
Baker, VL, Brown, MB, Luke, B, Smith, GW, Ireland, JJ. Gonadotropin dose is negatively correlated with live birth rate: analysis of more than 650,000 assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril 2015;104(5):1145.e5–1152.e5.Google Scholar
Matsaseng, T, Kruger, T, Steyn, W. Mild ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: are we ready to change? A meta-analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013;76(4):233–240.Google Scholar
Heijnen, EM, Eijkemans, MJ, De Klerk, C, et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2007;369(9563):743–749.Google Scholar
Datta, AK, Maheshwari, A, Felix, N, Campbell, S, Nargund, G. Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2020;41:225–238.Google Scholar
Datta, AK, Maheshwari, A, Felix, N, Campbell, S, Nargund, G. Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor, normal and hyper-responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2021;27:229–253.Google Scholar
Aboulghar, MA, Mansour, RT, Serour, GA, et al. In vitro fertilization in a spontaneous cycle: a successful simple protocol. J Obstet Gynaecol (Tokyo 1995) 1995;21(4):337–340.Google Scholar
Nargund, G, Waterstone, J, Bland, J, et al. Cumulative conception and live birth rates in natural (unstimulated) IVF cycles. Hum Reprod 2001;16(2):259–262.Google Scholar
Bensdorp, AJ, Tjon-Kon-Fat, RI, Bossuyt, PM, et al. Prevention of multiple pregnancies in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility: randomised controlled trial of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. BMJ 2015;350:g7771.Google Scholar
Sunkara, SK, La Marca, A, Seed, PT, Khalaf, Y. Increased risk of preterm birth and low birthweight with very high number of oocytes following IVF: an analysis of 65 868 singleton live birth outcomes. Hum Reprod 2015;30(6):1473–1480.Google Scholar
Kamath, MS, Kirubakaran, R, Mascarenhas, M, Sunkara, SK. Perinatal outcomes after stimulated versus natural cycle IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2018;36(1):94–101.Google Scholar
Pelinck, MJ, Hoek, A, Simons, AH, Heineman, MJ. Efficacy of natural cycle IVF: a review of the literature. Hum Reprod Update 2002;8(2):129–139.Google Scholar
Lensen, SF, Wilkinson, J, Leijdekkers, JA, et al. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;2:CD012693.Google Scholar
Blockeel, C, Sterrenburg, MD, Broekmans, FJ, et al. Follicular phase endocrine characteristics during ovarian stimulation and GnRH antagonist cotreatment for IVF: RCT comparing recFSH initiated on cycle day 2 or 5. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:1122–1128.Google Scholar
Casano, S, Guidetti, D, Patriarca, A, et al. MILD ovarian stimulation with GnRH-antagonist vs. long protocol with low dose FSH for non-PCO high responders undergoing IVF: a prospective, randomized study including thawing cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012;29:1343–1351.Google Scholar
Dhont, M, Onghena, A, Coetsier, T, De Sutter, P. Prospective randomized study of clomiphene citrate and gonadotrophins versus goserelin and gonadotrophins for follicular stimulation in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 1995;10:791–796.Google Scholar
Elnashar, I, Farghaly, TA, Abdalbadie, AS, et al. Low cost ovarian stimulation protocol is associated with lower pregnancy rate in normal responders in comparison to long protocol. Fertil Steril 2016;106 (Suppl 3):e194–e195.Google Scholar
Ghoshdastidar, S, Maity, S, Ghoshdastidar, B. Improved ICSI outcome in poor responders using a novel stimulation regime with micro-dose flare followed by GnRH antagonist in mid follicular phase. Hum Reprod 2010;1:i316.Google Scholar
Grochowski, D, Wolczynski, S, Kuczynski, W, et al. Good results of milder form of ovarian stimulation in an in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection program. Gynecol Endocrinol 1999;13:297–304.Google Scholar
Harrison, RF, Kondaveeti, U, Barry-Kinsella, C, et al. Should gonadotropin-releasing hormone down-regulation therapy be routine in in vitro fertilization? Fertil Steril 1994;62:568–573.Google Scholar
Hohmann, FP, Macklon, NS, Fauser, BC. A randomized comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cotreatment for in vitro fertilization commencing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone on cycle day 2 or 5 with the standard long GnRH agonist protocol. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:166–173.Google Scholar
Karimzadeh, MA, Ahmadi, S, Oskouian, H, Rahmani, E. Comparison of mild stimulation and conventional stimulation in ART outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010;281:741–746.Google Scholar
Long, CA, Sopelak, VM, Lincoln, SR, Cowan, BD. Luteal phase consequences of low-dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy in nonluteal-supported in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 1995;64:573–576.Google Scholar
Lou, HY, Huang, XY. Modified natural cycle for in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in normal ovarian responders. J Int Med Res 2010;38:2070–2076.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, S, Sharma, S, Chakravarty, BN. Letrozole in a low-cost in vitro fertilization protocol in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles for male factor infertility: a randomized controlled trial. J Hum Reprod Sci 2012;5:170–174.Google Scholar
Oudshoorn, SC, van Tilborg, TC, Eijkemans, MJC, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 2: The predicted hyper responder. Hum Reprod 2017;32:2506–2514.Google Scholar
Tummon, IS, Daniel, SA, Kaplan, BR, Nisker, JA, Yuzpe, AA. Randomized, prospective comparison of luteal leuprolide acetate and gonadotropins versus clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins in 408 first cycles of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1992;58:563–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bastu, E, Buyru, F, Ozsurmeli, M, et al. A randomized, single-blind, prospective trial comparing three different gonadotropin doses with or without addition of letrozole during ovulation stimulation in patients with poor ovarian response. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;203:30–34.Google Scholar
Goswami, SK, Das, T, Chattopadhyay, R, et al. A randomized single-blind controlled trial of letrozole as a low-cost IVF protocol in women with poor ovarian response: a preliminary report. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2031–2035.Google Scholar
Huang, R, Wang, B, Yang, X, Li, TT, Liang, XY. The comparison of mild stimulation vs. controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocol in poor ovarian responders: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 2015;1:i49–i50.Google Scholar
Martinez, F, Coroleu, B, Marques, L, et al. Comparison of “short protocol” versus “antagonists” with or without clomiphene citrate for stimulation in IVF of patients with “low response”. [Spanish]. Rev Iberoam Fertil Reprod Hum 2003;20:355–360.Google Scholar
Mohsen, IA, El Din, RE. Minimal stimulation protocol using letrozole versus microdose flare up GnRH agonist protocol in women with poor ovarian response undergoing ICSI. Gynecol Endocrinol 2013;29:105–108.Google Scholar
Pilehvari, S, Shahrokh Tehraninejad, E, Hosseinrashidi, B, et al. Comparison pregnancy outcomes between minimal stimulation protocol and conventional GnRH antagonist protocols in poor ovarian responders. J Family Reprod Health 2016;10:35–42.Google Scholar
Ragni, G, Levi-Setti, PE, Fadini, R, et al. Clomiphene citrate versus high doses of gonadotropins for in vitro fertilisation in women with compromised ovarian reserve: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012;10:114.Google Scholar
Revelli, A, Chiadò, A, Dalmasso, P, et al. “Mild” vs. “long” protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in patients with expected poor ovarian responsiveness undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF): a large prospective randomized trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014;31:809–815.Google Scholar
van Tilborg, TC, Torrance, HL, Oudshoorn, SC, et al.; OPTIMIST study group. The end for individualized dosing in IVF ovarian stimulation? Reply to letters-to-the-editor regarding the OPTIMIST papers. Hum Reprod 2018;33:984–988.Google Scholar
Youssef, MA, van Wely, M, Al-Inany, H, et al. A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF: a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod 2017;32:112–118.Google Scholar
Yu, R, Jin, H, Huang, X, Lin, J, Wang, P. Comparison of modified agonist, mild-stimulation and antagonist protocols for in vitro fertilization in patients with diminished ovarian reserve. J Int Med Res 2018;46:2327–2337.Google Scholar
Sterrenburg, MD, Veltman-Verhulst, SM, Eijkemans, MJ, et al. Clinical outcomes in relation to the daily dose of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization in presumed normal responders younger than 39 years: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:184–196.Google Scholar
Gibreel, A, Maheshwari, A, Bhattacharya, S. Clomiphene citrate in combination with gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;11:CD008528.Google Scholar
Figueiredo, JB, Nastri, CO, Vieira, AD, Martins, WP. Clomiphene combined with gonadotropins and GnRH antagonist versus conventional controlled ovarian hyperstimulation without clomiphene in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013;287:779–790.Google Scholar
Bechtejew, TN, Nadai, MN, Nastri, CO, Martins, WP. Clomiphene citrate and letrozole to reduce follicle-stimulating hormone consumption during ovarian stimulation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;50:315–323.Google Scholar
Fan, Y, Zhang, X, Hao, Z, et al. Effectiveness of mild ovarian stimulation versus GnRH agonist protocol in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Endocrinol 2017;33:746–756.Google Scholar
Kamath, MS, Maheshwari, A, Bhattacharya, S, Lor, KY, Gibreel, A. Oral medications including clomiphene citrate or aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;11:CD008528.Google Scholar
Song, D, Shi, Y, Zhong, Y, et al. Efficiency of mild ovarian stimulation with clomiphene on poor ovarian responders during IVF\ICSI procedures: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;204:36–43.Google Scholar
Youssef, MA, van Wely, M, Mochtar, M, et al. Low dosing of gonadotropins in in vitro fertilization cycles for women with poor ovarian reserve: systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2018;109:289–301.Google Scholar
Montoya-Botero, P, Drakopoulos, P, Gonzalez-Foruria, I, Polyzos, NP. Fresh and cumulative live birth rates in mild versus conventional stimulation for IVF cycles in poor ovarian responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Open 2021;2021:hoaa066.Google Scholar
References
Zegers-Hochschild, F, Adamson, D, Dyer, S, et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Hum Reprod 2017;32(9):1786–1801.Google Scholar
Nargund, G, Fauser, BC, Macklon, NS, et al. The ISMAAR proposal on terminology for ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod 2007;22:2801–2804.Google Scholar
Alper, MM, Fauser, BC. Ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF: is more better than less? Reprod Biomed Online 2017;34(4):345–353.Google Scholar
Siristatidis, C, Salamalekis, G, Dafopoulos, K, et al. Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI. In Vivo 2017;31(2):231–237.Google Scholar
Orvieto, R, Vanni, VS, Gleicher, N. The myths surrounding mild stimulation in vitro fertilization (IVF). Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2017;15(1):48.Google Scholar
Verberg, MFG, Eijkemans, MJC, Machlon, NS, et al. The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15:5–12.Google Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Comparison of pregnancy rates for poor responders using IVF with mild ovarian stimulation versus conventional IVF: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2018;109(6):993–999.Google Scholar
Hillier, SG, Afnan, AM, Margara, RA, Winston, RM. Superovulation strategy before in vitro fertilization. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1985;12(3):687–723.Google Scholar
Sunkara, SK, Rittenberg, V, Raine-Fenning, N, et al. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1768–1774.Google Scholar
Ji, J, Liu, Y, Tong, XH, et al. The optimum number of oocytes in IVF treatment: an analysis of 2455 cycles in China. Hum Reprod 2013;28(10):2728–2734.Google Scholar
Beckers, NGM, Macklon, NS, Eijkemans, MJC, Fauser, BCJM. Women with regular menstrual cycles and a poor response to ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization exhibit follicular phase characteristics suggestive of ovarian aging. Fertil Steril 2002;78:291–297.Google Scholar
Briggs, R, Kovacs, G, MacLachlan, V, Motteram, C, Baker, HW. Can you ever collect too many oocytes? Hum Reprod 2015;30(1):81–87.Google Scholar
Fauser, BC, Devroey, P, Macklon, NS. Multiple birth resulting from ovarian stimulation for subfertility treatment. Lancet 2005;365:1807–1816.Google Scholar
Macklon, NS, Stouffer, RL, Giudice, LC, Fauser, BC. The science behind 25 years of ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Endocr Rev 2006;27:170–207.Google Scholar
Zacà, C, Spadoni, V, Patria, G, et al. How do live birth and cumulative live birth rate in IVF cycles change with the number of oocytes retrieved? EC Gynaecol 2017;20:391–401.Google Scholar
Fauser, BC, Devroey, P, Yen, SS, et al. Minimal ovarian stimulation for IVF: appraisal of potential benefits and drawbacks. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2681–2686.Google Scholar
McAvey, B, Zapantis, A, Jindal, SK, Lieman, HJ, Polotsky, AJ. How many eggs are needed to produce an assisted reproductive technology baby: is more always better? Fertil Steril 2011;96:332–335.Google Scholar
Polyzos, NP, Drakopoulos, P, Parra, J, et al. Cumulative live birth rates according to the number of oocytes retrieved after the first ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a multicenter multinational analysis including 15,000 women. Fertil Steril 2018;110(4):661–670.Google Scholar
Devesa, M, Tur, R, Rodríguez, I, et al. Cumulative live birth rates and number of oocytes retrieved in women of advanced age. A single centre analysis including 4500 women ≥38 years old. Hum Reprod 2018;33(11):2010–2017.Google Scholar
Baart, EB, Martini, E, Eijkemans, MJ, et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007;22:980–988.Google Scholar
Verpoest, W, Fauser, BC, Papanikolaou, E, et al. Chromosomal aneuploidy in embryos conceived with unstimulated cycle IVF. Hum Reprod 2008;23(10):2369–2371.Google Scholar
Gleicher, N, Kim, A, Weghofer, A, Barad, DH. Lessons from elective in vitro fertilization (IVF) in, principally, non-infertile women. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012;10:48.Google Scholar
Labarta, E, Bosch, E, Alama, P, et al. Moderate ovarian stimulation does not increase the incidence of human embryo chromosomal abnormalities in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012;97:1987–1994.Google Scholar
Rubio, C, Mercader, A, Alamá, P, et al. Prospective cohort study in high responder oocyte donors using two hormonal stimulation protocols: impact on embryo aneuploidy and development. Hum Reprod 2010;25:2290–2297.Google Scholar
Labarta, E, Bosh, E, Mercader, A, et al. A higher ovarian response after stimulation for IVF is related to a higher number of euploid embryos. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:5637923.Google Scholar
Sekhon, L, Shaia, K, Santistevan, A, et al. The cumulative dose of gonadotropins used for controlled ovarian stimulation does not influence the odds of embryonic aneuploidy in patients with normal ovarian response. J Assist Reprod Genet 2017;34(6):749–758.Google Scholar
Roque, M, Haahr, T, Geber, S, Esteves, SC, Humaidan, P. Fresh versus elective frozen embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Hum Reprod Update 2019;25:2–14.Google Scholar
Maheshwari, A, McLernon, D, Bhattacharya, S. Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Hum Reprod 2015;30(12):2703–2707.Google Scholar
Sunkara, SK, Khalaf, Y, Maheshwari, A, Seed, P, Coomarasamy, A. Association between response to ovarian stimulation and miscarriage following IVF: an analysis of 124 351 IVF pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2014;29(6):1218–1224.Google Scholar
Cai, QF, Wan, F, Huang, R, Zhang, HW. Factors predicting the cumulative outcome of IVF/ICSI treatment: a multivariable analysis of 2450 patients. Hum Reprod 2011;26(9):2532–2540.Google Scholar
Vaughan, DA, Leung, A, Resetkova, N, et al. How many oocytes are optimal to achieve multiple live births with one stimulation cycle? The one-and-done approach. Fertil Steril 2017;107(2):397–404.Google Scholar
Fauser, BC, Nargund, G, Andersen, AN, et al. Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: 10 years later. Hum Reprod 2010;25(11):2678–2684.Google Scholar
Drakopoulos, P, Blockeel, C, Stoop, D, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod 2016;31(2):370–376.Google Scholar
Baker, VL. Mild ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: one perspective from the USA. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013;30(2):197–202.Google Scholar
Delvigne, A. Symposium: update on prediction and management of OHSS. Epidemiology of OHSS. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19:8–13.Google Scholar
Papanikolaou, EG, Tournaye, H, Verpoest, W, et al. Early and late ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: early pregnancy outcome and profile. Hum Reprod 2005;20:636–641.Google Scholar
Matsaseng, T, Kruger, T, Steyn, W. Mild ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: are we ready to change? A meta-analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013;76:233–240.Google Scholar
Steward, RG, Lan, L, Shah, AA, et al. Oocyte number as a predictor for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and live birth: an analysis of 256,381 in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2014;101(4):967–973.Google Scholar
Zacà, C, Bazzocchi, A, Pennetta, F, et al. Cumulative live birth rate in freeze-all cycles is comparable to that of a conventional embryo transfer policy at the cleavage stage but superior at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2018;110(4):703–709.Google Scholar
Devroey, P, Polyzos, NP, Blockeel, C. An OHSS-free clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2011;26:2593–7.Google Scholar
Wong, KM, van Wely, M, Mol, F, Repping, S, Mastenbroek, S. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;3:CD011184.Google ScholarPubMed