Best protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted reproductive technologies: Fact or opinion?

Seminars in Reproductive Medicine

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 262-271

  Polat, Mehtap ^a   Bozdag, Gurkan ^b   Yarali, Hakan ^a,b  

^a Anatolia IVF Center   (Turkey)

^b HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

controlled ovarian hyperstimulation; hyperresponder; In vitro fertilization; individualization; live birth; normal responder; ovarian reserve; poor responder

Indexed keywords

GONADOTROPIN; FERTILITY PROMOTING AGENT;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTROLLED OVARIAN HYPERSTIMULATION; DRUG DOSE INCREASE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); OOCYTE; OOCYTE MATURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVARIAN RESERVE; OVARY HYPERSTIMULATION; PREDICTION; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANCY RATE; THERAPY EFFECT; DRUG ADMINISTRATION; DRUG COMBINATION; DRUG EFFECTS; FEMALE; FERTILITY; INFERTILITY; OVULATION INDUCTION; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT SELECTION; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTOR; SUPEROVULATION; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; DRUG ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULE; DRUG THERAPY, COMBINATION; FEMALE; FERTILITY; FERTILITY AGENTS; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMANS; INFERTILITY; OVULATION INDUCTION; PATIENT SELECTION; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTORS; SUPEROVULATION; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84902358460     PISSN: 15268004     EISSN: 15264564     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1375178     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Nardo L. G., Fleming R., Howles C. M., et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation no longer exists: welcome to the age of individualized ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online: 2011; 23 2 141 148
2. Alviggi C., Humaidan P., Ezcurra D. Hormonal, functional and genetic biomarkers in controlled ovarian stimulation: tools for matching patients and protocols. Reprod Biol Endocrinol: 2012; 10 9
3. Humaidan P., Polyzos N. P. (Meta)analyze this: systematic reviews might lose credibility. Nat Med: 2012; 18 9 1321
4. Daya S., Gunby J. Luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: 2004; 3 CD004830
5. van der Linden M., Buckingham K., Farquhar C., Kremer J. A., Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: 2011; 10 CD009154
6. Hill M. J., Levens E. D., Levy G., et al. The use of recombinant luteinizing hormone in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques with advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril: 2012; 97 5 1108 1114, e1
7. König T. E., van der Houwen L. E., Lambalk C. B. Recombinant LH supplementation in women of 35 years and older undergoing IVF? Fertil Steril: 2012; 98 1 e10 e11, author reply e12
8. Steptoe P. C., Edwards R. G. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet: 1978; 2 8085 366 (Pubitemid 9007386)
9. 2011 Assisted Reproductive Technology National Summary Report Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/art/ART2011/NationalSummary-index.htm. Accessed on May 16, 2014
10. La Marca A., Sunkara S. K. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update: 2014; 20 1 124 140
11. Sunkara S. K., Rittenberg V., Raine-Fenning N., Bhattacharya S., Zamora J., Coomarasamy A. 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
12. Ji J., Liu Y., Tong X. H., Luo L., Ma J., Chen Z. The optimum number of oocytes in IVF treatment: an analysis of 2455 cycles in China. Hum Reprod: 2013; 28 10 2728 2734
13. Bourgain C., Devroey P. The endometrium in stimulated cycles for IVF. Hum Reprod Update: 2003; 9 6 515 522 (Pubitemid 38072144)
14. Kalra S. K., Ratcliffe S. J., Dokras A. Is the fertile window extended in women with polycystic ovary syndrome? Utilizing the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry to assess the impact of reproductive aging on live-birth rate. Fertil Steril: 2013; 100 1 208 213
15. Broer S. L., van Disseldorp J., Broeze K. A., et al. IMPORT study group. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update: 2013; 19 1 26 36
16. Verhagen T. E., Hendriks D. J., Bancsi L. F., Mol B. W., Broekmans F. J. The accuracy of multivariate models predicting ovarian reserve and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update: 2008; 14 2 95 100 (Pubitemid 351321105)
17. Broer S. L., Dólleman M., van Disseldorp J., et al. IPD-EXPORT Study Group. Prediction of an excessive response in in vitro fertilization from patient characteristics and ovarian reserve tests and comparison in subgroups: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril: 2013; 100 2 420 429, e7
18. Al-Azemi M., Killick S. R., Duffy S., et al. Multi-marker assessment of ovarian reserve predicts oocyte yield after ovulation induction. Hum Reprod: 2011; 26 2 414 422
19. Nelson S. M., Yates R. W., Fleming R. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles-implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod: 2007; 22 9 2414 2421 (Pubitemid 47289055)
20. Arce J. C., La Marca A., Mirner Klein B., Nyboe Andersen A., Fleming R. Antimüllerian hormone in gonadotropin releasing-hormone antagonist cycles: prediction of ovarian response and cumulative treatment outcome in good-prognosis patients. Fertil Steril: 2013; 99 6 1644 1653
21. Polyzos N. P., Tournaye H., Guzman L., Camus M., Nelson S. M. Predictors of ovarian response in women treated with corifollitropin alfa for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril: 2013; 100 2 430 437
22. Wallace A. M., Faye S. A., Fleming R., Nelson S. M. A multicentre evaluation of the new Beckman Coulter anti-Mullerian hormone immunoassay (AMH Gen II). Ann Clin Biochem: 2011; 48 Pt 4 370 373
23. Kumar A., Kalra B., Patel A., McDavid L., Roudebush W. E. Development of a second generation anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) ELISA. J Immunol Methods: 2010; 362 1-2 51 59
24. Rustamov O., Smith A., Roberts S. A., et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone: poor assay reproducibility in a large cohort of subjects suggests sample instability. Hum Reprod: 2012; 27 10 3085 3091
25. Nelson S. M., Yates R. W., Lyall H., et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone-based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod: 2009; 24 4 867 875
26. Frattarelli J. L., Levi A. J., Miller B. T., Segars J. H. A prospective assessment of the predictive value of basal antral follicles in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril: 2003; 80 2 350 355 (Pubitemid 36959793)
27. Jayaprakasan K., Deb S., Batcha M., et al. The cohort of antral follicles measuring 2-6.  mm reflects the quantitative status of ovarian reserve as assessed by serum levels of anti-Müllerian hormone and response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril: 2010; 94 5 1775 1781
28. Aflatoonian A., Oskouian H., Ahmadi S., Oskouian L. Prediction of high ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: anti-Müllerian hormone versus small antral follicle count (2-6 mm). J Assist Reprod Genet: 2009; 26 6 319 325
29. Broekmans F. J., de Ziegler D., Howles C. M., Gougeon A., Trew G., Olivennes F. The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertil Steril: 2010; 94 3 1044 1051
30. van Disseldorp J., Lambalk C. B., Kwee J., et al. Comparison of inter- and intra-cycle variability of anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle counts. Hum Reprod: 2010; 25 1 221 227
31. Scheffer G. J., Broekmans F. J., Bancsi L. F., Habbema J. D., Looman C. W., Te Velde E. R. Quantitative transvaginal two- and three-dimensional sonography of the ovaries: reproducibility of antral follicle counts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol: 2002; 20 3 270 275
32. Jayaprakasan K., Campbell B. K., Clewes J. S., Johnson I. R., Raine-Fenning N. J. Three-dimensional ultrasound improves the interobserver reliability of antral follicle counts and facilitates increased clinical work flow. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol: 2008; 31 4 439 444
33. Ferraretti A. P., La Marca A., Fauser B. C., Tarlatzis B., Nargund G., Gianaroli L.; ESHRE working group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition. ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod: 2011; 26 7 1616 1624
34. Garcia-Velasco J. A., Isaza V., Requena A., et al. High doses of gonadotrophins combined with stop versus non-stop protocol of GnRH analogue administration in low responder IVF patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Hum Reprod: 2000; 15 11 2292 2296
35. Dirnfeld M., Fruchter O., Yshai D., Lissak A., Ahdut A., Abramovici H. Cessation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRH-a) upon down-regulation versus conventional long GnRH-a protocol in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril: 1999; 72 3 406 411 (Pubitemid 29414877)
36. Kyrou D., Kolibianakis E. M., Venetis C. A., Papanikolaou E. G., Bontis J., Tarlatzis B. C. How to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril: 2009; 91 3 749 766
37. Weissman A., Farhi J., Royburt M., Nahum H., Glezerman M., Levran D. Prospective evaluation of two stimulation protocols for low responders who were undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril: 2003; 79 4 886 892 (Pubitemid 36385008)
38. Kenigsberg D., Littman B. A., Hodgen G. D. Medical hypophysectomy: I. Dose-response using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist. Fertil Steril: 1984; 42 1 112 115 (Pubitemid 14086161)
39. Pu D., Wu J., Liu J. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod: 2011; 26 10 2742 2749
40. Sunkara S. K., Coomarasamy A., Faris R., Braude P., Khalaf Y. Long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus short agonist versus antagonist regimens in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril: 2014; 101 1 147 153
41. Nargund G., Fauser B. C., Macklon N. S., Ombelet W., Nygren K., Frydman R.; 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 (Pubitemid 351696817)
42. Zhang J., Chang L., Sone Y., Silber S. Minimal ovarian stimulation (mini-IVF) for IVF utilizing vitrification and cryopreserved embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online: 2010; 21 4 485 495
43. Gleicher N., Weghofer A., Barad D. H. Low-intensity IVF: real progress? Reprod Biomed Online: 2011; 23 3 274 278
44. Ragni G., Levi-Setti P. E., 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
45. Mohsen I. A., El Din R. E. Minimal stimulation protocol using letrozole versus microdose flare up GnRH agonist protocol in women with poor ovarian response undergoing ICSI. Gynecol Endocrinol: 2013; 29 2 105 108
46. Yoo J. H., Cha S. H., Park C. W., et al. Comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders. Clin Exp Reprod Med: 2011; 38 3 159 163
47. 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 (Pubitemid 38748996)
48. Cohen J., Grudzinskas G., Johnson M. Welcome to the '100% club'! Reprod Biomed Online: 2012; 24 4 375 376
49. Cobo A., Garrido N., Crespo J., José R., Pellicer A. Accumulation of oocytes: a new strategy for managing low-responder patients. Reprod Biomed Online: 2012; 24 4 424 432
50. Klinkert E. R., Broekmans F. J., Looman C. W., Te Velde E. R. A poor response in the first in vitro fertilization cycle is not necessarily related to a poor prognosis in subsequent cycles. Fertil Steril: 2004; 81 5 1247 1253 (Pubitemid 38609306)
51. Klinkert E. R., Broekmans F. J., Looman C. W., Habbema J. D., te Velde E. R. Expected poor responders on the basis of an antral follicle count do not benefit from a higher starting dose of gonadotrophins in IVF treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod: 2005; 20 3 611 615 (Pubitemid 40425484)
52. Cedrin-Durnerin I., Bständig B., Hervé F., Wolf J., Uzan M., Hugues J. A comparative study of high fixed-dose and decremental-dose regimens of gonadotropins in a minidose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist flare protocol for poor responders. Fertil Steril: 2000; 73 5 1055 1056 (Pubitemid 30227537)
53. Khalaf Y., El-Toukhy T., Taylor A., Braude P. Increasing the gonadotrophin dose in the course of an in vitro fertilization cycle does not rectify an initial poor response. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol: 2002; 103 2 146 149 (Pubitemid 34586786)
54. Land J. A., Yarmolinskaya M. I., Dumoulin J. C., Evers J. L. High-dose human menopausal gonadotropin stimulation in poor responders does not improve in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril: 1996; 65 5 961 965 (Pubitemid 26126828)
55. van Tilborg T. C., Eijkemans M. J., Laven J. S., et al. The OPTIMIST study: optimisation of cost effectiveness through individualised FSH stimulation dosages for IVF treatment. A randomised controlled trial. BMC Womens Health: 2012; 12 29
56. Chang X., Wu J. Effects of luteal estradiol pre-treatment on the outcome of IVF in poor ovarian responders. Gynecol Endocrinol: 2013; 29 3 196 200
57. Marrs R., Meldrum D., Muasher S., Schoolcraft W., Werlin L., Kelly E. Randomized trial to compare the effect of recombinant human FSH (follitropin alfa) with or without recombinant human LH in women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. Reprod Biomed Online: 2004; 8 2 175 182 (Pubitemid 38208463)
58. Nyboeandersen A., Humaidan P., Fried G., et al. Nordic LH study group. Recombinant LH supplementation to recombinant FSH during the final days of controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. A multicentre, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Hum Reprod: 2008; 23 2 427 434 (Pubitemid 351651237)
59. Matorras R., Prieto B., Exposito A., et al. Mid-follicular LH supplementation in women aged 35-39 years undergoing ICSI cycles: a randomized controlled study. Reprod Biomed Online: 2009; 19 6 879 887
60. König T. E., van der Houwen L. E., Overbeek A., et al. Recombinant LH supplementation to a standard GnRH antagonist protocol in women of 35 years or older undergoing IVF/ICSI: a randomized controlled multicentre study. Hum Reprod: 2013; 28 10 2804 2812
61. De Placido G., Alviggi C., Mollo A., et al. Effects of recombinant LH (rLH) supplementation during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in normogonadotrophic women with an initial inadequate response to recombinant FSH (rFSH) after pituitary downregulation. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf): 2004; 60 5 637 643 (Pubitemid 38669856)
62. Narkwichean A., Maalouf W., Campbell B. K., Jayaprakasan K. Efficacy of dehydroepiandrosterone to improve ovarian response in women with diminished ovarian reserve: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol: 2013; 11 44
63. Bosdou J. K., Venetis C. A., Kolibianakis E. M., et al. The use of androgens or androgen-modulating agents in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update: 2012; 18 2 127 145
64. Kolibianakis E. M., Venetis C. A., Diedrich K., Tarlatzis B. C., Griesinger G. Addition of growth hormone to gonadotrophins in ovarian stimulation of poor responders treated by in-vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update: 2009; 15 6 613 622
65. Braat D. D., Schutte J. M., Bernardus R. E., Mooij T. M., van Leeuwen F. E. Maternal death related to IVF in the Netherlands 1984-2008. Hum Reprod: 2010; 25 7 1782 1786
66. Ertzeid G., Storeng R. The impact of ovarian stimulation on implantation and fetal development in mice. Hum Reprod: 2001; 16 2 221 225 (Pubitemid 32149411)
67. Humaidan P., Quartarolo J., Papanikolaou E. G. Preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: guidance for the clinician. Fertil Steril: 2010; 94 2 389 400
68. Navot D., Bergh P. A., Laufer N. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in novel reproductive technologies: prevention and treatment. Fertil Steril: 1992; 58 2 249 261
69. Kwee J., Schats R., McDonnell J., Themmen A., de Jong F., Lambalk C. Evaluation of anti-Müllerian hormone as a test for the prediction of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril: 2008; 90 3 737 743
70. Lee T. H., Liu C. H., Huang C. C., et al. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and estradiol levels as predictors of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in assisted reproduction technology cycles. Hum Reprod: 2008; 23 1 160 167
71. Altmäe S., Hovatta O., Stavreus-Evers A., Salumets A. Genetic predictors of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: where do we stand today? Hum Reprod Update: 2011; 17 6 813 828
72. Al-Inany H. G., Youssef M. A., Aboulghar M., et al. GnRH antagonists are safer than agonists: an update of a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod Update: 2011; 17 4 435
73. Kol S., Humaidan P. GnRH agonist triggering: recent developments. Reprod Biomed Online: 2013; 26 3 226 230
74. Engmann L., DiLuigi A., Schmidt D., Benadiva C., Maier D., Nulsen J. The effect of luteal phase vaginal estradiol supplementation on the success of in vitro fertilization treatment: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril: 2008; 89 3 554 561 (Pubitemid 351337666)
75. Humaidan P., Ejdrup Bredkjaer H., Westergaard L. G., Yding Andersen C. 1,500 IU human chorionic gonadotropin administered at oocyte retrieval rescues the luteal phase when gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is used for ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril: 2010; 93 3 847 854
76. Shapiro B. S., Daneshmand S. T., Garner F. C., Aguirre M., Thomas S. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist combined with a reduced dose of human chorionic gonadotropin for final oocyte maturation in fresh autologous cycles of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril: 2008; 90 1 231 233 (Pubitemid 351885203)
77. Papanikolaou E. G., Verpoest W., Fatemi H., Tarlatzis B., Devroey P., Tournaye H. A novel method of luteal supplementation with recombinant luteinizing hormone when a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is used instead of human chorionic gonadotropin for ovulation triggering: a randomized prospective proof of concept study. Fertil Steril: 2011; 95 3 1174 1177
78. Humaidan P., Polyzos N. P., Alsbjerg B., et al. GnRHa trigger and individualized luteal phase hCG support according to ovarian response to stimulation: two prospective randomized controlled multi-centre studies in IVF patients. Hum Reprod: 2013; 28 9 2511 2521
79. Seyhan A., Ata B., Polat M., Son W. Y., Yarali H., Dahan M. H. Severe early ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome following GnRH agonist trigger with the addition of 1500 IU hCG. Hum Reprod: 2013; 28 9 2522 2528
80. Palomba S., Falbo A., La Sala G. B. Effects of metformin in women with polycystic ovary syndrome treated with gonadotrophins for in vitro fertilisation and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BJOG: 2013; 120 3 267 276
81. Gomez R., Gonzalez-Izquierdo M., Zimmermann R. C., et al. Low-dose dopamine agonist administration blocks vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-mediated vascular hyperpermeability without altering VEGF receptor 2-dependent luteal angiogenesis in a rat ovarian hyperstimulation model. Endocrinology: 2006; 147 11 5400 5411 (Pubitemid 44790595)
82. Leitao V. M., Moroni R. M., Seko L. M., Nastri C. O., Martins W. P. Cabergoline for the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril: 2014; 101 3 664 675
83. D'Angelo A., Amso N. Coasting (withholding gonadotrophins) for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: 2002; 3 CD002811
84. Devroey P., Aboulghar M., Garcia-Velasco J., et al. Improving the patient's experience of IVF/ICSI: a proposal for an ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRH antagonist co-treatment. Hum Reprod: 2009; 24 4 764 774
85. Heijnen E. M., Eijkemans M. J., De Klerk C., et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet: 2007; 369 9563 743 749
86. Hohmann F. P., Macklon N. S., Fauser B. C. 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 1 166 173 (Pubitemid 36115160)
87. Verberg M. F., Eijkemans M. J., Macklon N. S., 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 1 5 12
88. Sterrenburg M. D., Veltman-Verhulst S. M., Eijkemans M. J., 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 2 184 196
89. Popovic-Todorovic B., Loft A., Bredkjaeer H. E., Bangsboll S., Nielsen I. K., Andersen A. N. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing an individual dose of recombinant FSH based on predictive factors versus a 'standard' dose of 150 IU/day in 'standard' patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. Hum Reprod: 2003; 18 11 2275 2282 (Pubitemid 37427803)
90. Olivennes F., Howles C. M., Borini A., et al. CONSORT study group. Individualizing FSH dose for assisted reproduction using a novel algorithm: the CONSORT study. Reprod Biomed Online: 2009; 18 2 195 204
91. La Marca A., Grisendi V., Giulini S., et al. Individualization of the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles using the antral follicle count. J Ovarian Res: 2013; 6 1 11
92. La Marca A., Nelson S. M., Sighinolfi G., et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone-based prediction model for a live birth in assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online: 2011; 22 4 341 349
93. Yates A. P., Rustamov O., Roberts S. A., et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone-tailored stimulation protocols improve outcomes whilst reducing adverse effects and costs of IVF. Hum Reprod: 2011; 26 9 2353 2362
94. Devroey P., Polyzos N. P., Blockeel C. An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod: 2011; 26 10 2593 2597
95. Shapiro B. S., Daneshmand S. T., Garner F. C., Aguirre M., Hudson C., Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril: 2011; 96 2 344 348
96. Maheshwari A., Pandey S., Shetty A., Hamilton M., Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril: 2012; 98 2 368 377, e1-e9