Wale, PL, Gardner, DK. The effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Swain, JE. Optimal human embryo culture. Semin Reprod Med 2015;33: 103–17.Google Scholar

Gardner, DK, Lane, M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum Reprod Update 1997;3: 367–82.Google Scholar

Quinn, P. The development and impact of culture media for assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 2004;81:27–29.Google Scholar

Rhenman, A, Berglund, L, Brodin, T et al. Which set of embryo variables is most predictive for live birth? A prospective study in 6252 single embryo transfers to construct an embryo score for the ranking and selection of embryos. Hum Reprod 2015;30:28–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Scott, LA, Smith, S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998;13: 1003–13.Google Scholar

Tesarik, J, Greco, E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod 1999;14: 1318–23.Google Scholar

Balaban, B, Yakin, K, Urman, B, Isiklar, A, Tesarik, J. Pronuclear morphology predicts embryo development and chromosome constitution. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;8:695–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;22: 632–46.Google Scholar

The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Human Reproduction 2011;26: 1270–83.Google Scholar

Aguilar, J, Motato, Y, Escriba, MJ et al. The human first cell cycle: impact on implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;28: 475–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rienzi, L, Ubaldi, F, Iacobelli, M et al. Significance of morphological attributes of the early embryo. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;10: 669–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hardarson, T, Hanson, C, Sjogren, A, Lundin, K. Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod 2001;16: 313–18.Google Scholar

Yakin, K, Balaban, B, Urman, B. Impact of the presence of one or more multinucleated blastomeres on the developmental potential of the embryo to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2005;83: 243–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hardarson, T, Selleskog, U, Reismer, E et al. Zygotes cleaving directly into more than two cells after 25–27 h in culture are predominantly chromosomally abnormal. Hum Reprod 2006;21:i102.Google Scholar

Glujovsky, D, Blake, D, Farquhar, C, Bardach, A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;7:CD002118.Google Scholar

Gardner, DK, Balaban, B. Assessment of human embryo development using morphological criteria in an era of time-lapse, algorithms and OMICS: Is looking good still important? Mol Hum Reprod 2016 October;22(10):704–18.Google Scholar

Biggers, JD, Bell, JE, Benos, DJ. Mammalian blastocyst: transport functions in a developing epithelium. Am J Physiol 1988;255:C419–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardner, DK, Lane, M, Schoolcraft, WB. Physiology and culture of the human blastocyst. J Reprod Immunol 2002;55:85–100.Google Scholar

Fleming, TP, Johnson, MH. From egg to epithelium. Ann Rev Cell Biol 1988;4: 459–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tao, J, Craig, RH, Johnson, M et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos at the morula stage and outcomes after transfer. Fertil Steril 2004;82: 108–18.Google Scholar

Ebner, T, Moser, M, Shebl, O et al. Morphological analysis at compacting stage is a valuable prognostic tool for ICSI patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;18: 61–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Feil, D, Henshaw, RC, Lane, M. Day 4 embryo selection is equal to Day 5 using a new embryo scoring system validated in single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2008;23: 1505–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gardner, DK, Schoolcraft, WB. In vitro culture of human blastocyst In: Jansen, R, Mortimer, D, eds. Towards Reproductive Certainty: Fertility and Genetics Beyond 1999. Carnforth, UK: Parthenon Publishing 1999: 378–88.Google Scholar

Gardner, DK, Lane, M, Stevens, J, Schlenker, T, Schoolcraft, WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;73: 1155–8.Google Scholar

Ahlstrom, A, Westin, C, Reismer, E, Wikland, M, Hardarson, T. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod 2011;26: 3289–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ebner, T, Tritscher, K, Mayer, RB et al. Quantitative and qualitative trophectoderm grading allows for prediction of live birth and gender. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33:49–57.Google Scholar

Gardner, DK. Lactate production by the mammalian blastocyst: manipulating the microenvironment for uterine implantation and invasion? Bioessays 2015;37: 364–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Van den Abbeel, E, Balaban, B, Ziebe, S et al. Association between blastocyst morphology and outcome of single-blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;27: 353–61.Google Scholar

Licciardi, F, McCaffrey, C, Oh, C, Schmidt-Sarosi, C, McCulloh, DH. Birth weight is associated with inner cell mass grade of blastocysts. Fertil Steril 2015;103:382–7 e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ansell, JD, Snow, MH. The development of trophoblast in vitro from blastocysts containing varying amounts of inner cell mass. J Embryol Exp Morphol 1975;33: 177–85.Google Scholar

Oron, G, Son, WY, Buckett, W, Tulandi, T, Holzer, H. The association between embryo quality and perinatal outcome of singletons born after single embryo transfers: a pilot study. Hum Reprod 2014;29: 1444–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lee, YS, Thouas, GA, Gardner, DK. Developmental kinetics of cleavage stage mouse embryos are related to their subsequent carbohydrate and amino acid utilization at the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 2015;30: 543–52.Google Scholar

Mastenbroek, S, van der Veen, F, Aflatoonian, A,. Embryo selection in IVF. Hum Reprod 2011;26: 964–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gardner, DK, Meseguer, M, Rubio, C, Treff, NR. Diagnosis of human preimplantation embryo viability. Hum Reprod Update 2015;21: 727–47.Google Scholar

Aparicio, B, Cruz, M, Meseguer, M. Is morphokinetic analysis the answer? Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2013;27(6): 654–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Basile, N, Caiazzo, M, Meseguer, M. What does morphokinetics add to embryo selection and in-vitro fertilization outcomes? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015 June;27(3):193–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wong, CC, Loewke, KE, Bossert, NL et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol 2010;28(10): 1115–21.Google Scholar

Meseguer, M, Herrero, J, Tejera, A et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Human Reproduction 2011;26(10): 2658–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rubio, I, Galán, A, Larreategui, Z et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril 2014;102(5): 1287–94. e5.Google Scholar

Basile, N, Vime, P, Florensa, M et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection. Hum Reprod 2015 February;30(2): 276–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Conaghan, J, Chen, AA, Willman, SP et al. Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil Steril 2013;100: 412–9.Google Scholar

Kirkegaard, K, Campbell, A, Agerholm, I et al. Limitations of a time-lapse blastocyst prediction model: a large multicentre outcome analysis. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2014;2: 156–8.Google Scholar

Petersen, BM, Boel, M, Montag, M, Gardner, DK. Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on Day 3. Hum Reprod 2016 October;31(10): 2231–44.Google Scholar

Huang, T, Chinn, K, Kosasa, T, Ahn, H, Kessel, B. Morphokinetics of human blastocyst expansion in vitro. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2016;33: 659–67.Google Scholar

Nogales, MDC, Bronet, F, Basile, N et al. Type of chromosome abnormality affects embryo morphology dynamics. Fertil Steril 2017;107: 229–35.Google Scholar

Milewski, R, Czerniecki, J, Kuczyńska, A, Stankiewicz, B, Kuczyński, W. Morphokinetic parameters as a source of information concerning embryo developmental and implantation potential. Ginekol Pol 2016;87(10): 677–84.Google Scholar

Liu, Y, Chapple, V, Feenan, K, Roberts, P, Matson, P. Time-lapse deselection model for human day 3 in vitro fertilization embryos: the combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of embryo growth. Fertil Steril 2016;105(3): 656–62. e1.Google Scholar

Motato, Y, de los Santos, María José, Escriba, MJ et al. Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation through an integrated time-lapse system. Fertil Steril 2015.Google Scholar

Kong, X, Yang, S, Gong, F et al. The Relationship between cell number, division behavior and developmental potential of cleavage stage human embryos: a time-lapse study. PloS one 2016;11(4):e0153697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bodri, D, Sugimoto, T, Serna, JY et al. Blastocyst collapse is not an independent predictor of reduced live birth: a time-lapse study. Fertil Steril 2016;105(6): 1476–83. e3.Google Scholar

Adamson, GD, Abusief, ME, Palao, L et al. Improved implantation rates of day 3 embryo transfers with the use of an automated time-lapse–enabled test to aid in embryo selection. Fertil Steril 2016;105(2): 369–75. e6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kieslinger, DC, De Gheselle, S, Lambalk, CB et al. Embryo selection using time-lapse analysis (Early Embryo Viability Assessment) in conjunction with standard morphology: a prospective two-center pilot study. Hum Reprod 2016;31: 2450–57.Google Scholar

Aparicio-Ruiz, B, Basile, N, Albalá, SP et al.Automatic time-lapse instrument is superior to single-point morphology observation for selecting viable embryos: retrospective study in oocyte donation. Fertil Steril 2016;106(6): 1379–85. e10.Google Scholar

Goodman, LR, Goldberg, J, Falcone, T, Austin, C, Desai, N. Does the addition of time-lapse morphokinetics in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2016;105(2): 275–85. e10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Haikin Herzberger, E, Ghetler, Y, Tamir Yaniv, R et al. Time lapse microscopy is useful for elective single-embryo transfer. Gynecological Endocrinology 2016;32:1–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ahlstrom, A, Park, H, Bergh, C, Selleskog, U, Lundin, K. Conventional morphology performs better than morphokinetics for prediction of live birth after day 2 transfer. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2016;33:61–70.Google Scholar

Costa-Borges, N, Bellés, M, Meseguer, M et al.Blastocyst development in single medium with or without renewal on day 3: a prospective cohort study on sibling donor oocytes in a time-lapse incubator. Fertil Steril 2016;105(3): 707–13.Google Scholar

Dal Canto, M, Novara, PV, Coticchio, G et al. Morphokinetics of embryos developed from oocytes matured in vitro. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33(2): 247–53.Google Scholar

Tejera, A, Castelló, D, de los Santos, Jose Maria et al. Combination of metabolism measurement and a time-lapse system provides an embryo selection method based on oxygen uptake and chronology of cytokinesis timing. Fertil Steril 2016 July;106(1): 119–26.Google Scholar

Patel, DV, Shah, PB, Kotdawala, AP et al. Morphokinetic behavior of euploid and aneuploid embryos analyzed by time-lapse in embryoscope. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences 2016;9(2):112.Google Scholar

Balakier, H, Sojecki, A, Motamedi, G, Librach, C. Impact of multinucleated blastomeres on embryo developmental competence, morphokinetics, and aneuploidy. Fertil Steril 2016 July;106: 119–26.Google Scholar

Bar-El, L, Kalma, Y, Malcov, M et al. Blastomere biopsy for PGD delays embryo compaction and blastulation: a time-lapse microscopic analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016 November;33:149–1457.Google Scholar

Bodri, D, Kawachiya, S, Sugimoto, T et al. Time-lapse variables and embryo gender: a retrospective analysis of 81 live births obtained following minimal stimulation and single embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33(5): 589–96.Google Scholar

Wu, Y, Lazzaroni-Tealdi, E, Wang, Q et al. Different effectiveness of closed embryo culture system with time-lapse imaging (EmbryoScope TM) in comparison to standard manual embryology in good and poor prognosis patients: a prospectively randomized pilot study. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 2016;14(1):49.Google Scholar

Demirel, C, Bastu, E, Aydogdu, S et al. The Presence of endometrioma does not impair time-lapse morphokinetic parameters and quality of embryos: a study on sibling oocytes. Reprod Sci 2016 August;23(8): 1053–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kirkegaard, K, Sundvall, L, Erlandsen, M et al. Timing of human preimplantation embryonic development is confounded by embryo origin. Hum Reprod 2016 February;31(2): 324–31.Google Scholar

Houghton, F.D., Hawkhead, J.A., Humpherson, P.G. et al., 2002. Non-invasive amino acid turnover predicts human embryo developmental capacity. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 17(4), pp. 999–1005.Google Scholar

Guerif, F., McKeegan, P.J., Leese, H.J. & Sturmey, R.G., 2013. A simple approach for COnsumption and RElease (CORE) analysis of metabolic activity in single mammalian embryos. PloS one, 8(8), p. e67834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brison, D.R., Houghton, F.D., Falconer, D. et al., 2004. Identification of viable embryos in IVF by non-invasive measurement of amino acid turnover. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 19(10), pp. 2319–24.Google Scholar

Picton, H.M., Elder, K., Houghton, F.D. et al., 2010. Association between amino acid turnover and chromosome aneuploidy during human preimplantation embryo development in vitro. Molecular Human Reproduction, 16(8), pp. 557–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sturmey, R.G., Brison, D.R., Leese, H.J., 2008 October. Symposium: innovative techniques in human embryo viability assessment. Assessing embryo viability by measurement of amino acid turnover. Reprod Biomed Online, 17(4), pp. 486–96.Google Scholar

Sunde, A., Brison, D.R., Dumoulin, J.C.M. et al., 2016. Time to take human embryo culture seriously. Human Reproduction, 31(10), pp. 2174–82.Google Scholar

Zuelke, K.A. & Brackett, B.G., 1992. Effects of luteinizing hormone on glucose metabolism in cumulus-enclosed bovine oocytes matured in vitro. Endocrinology, 131(6), pp. 2690–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Downs, S.M. & Utecht, A.M., 1999. Metabolism of radiolabeled glucose by mouse oocytes and oocyte-cumulus cell complexes1. Biology of Reproduction, 60(6), pp. 1446–52.Google Scholar

Downs, S.M. & Hudson, E.D., 2000. Energy substrates and the completion of spontaneous meiotic maturation. Zygote (Cambridge, England), 8(4),pp. 339–51.Google Scholar

Sutton, M.L., Gilchrist, R.B. & Thompson, J.G., 2003. Effects of in-vivo and in-vitro environments on the metabolism of the cumulus-oocyte complex and its influence on oocyte developmental capacity. Human Reproduction Update, 9(1), pp. 35–48.Google Scholar

Hemmings, K.E., Leese, H.J. & Picton, H.M., 2012. Amino acid turnover by bovine oocytes provides an index of oocyte developmental competence in vitro1. Biology of Reproduction, 86(5), p. 165.Google Scholar

Leese, H.J. & Barton, A.M., 1984. Pyruvate and glucose uptake by mouse ova and preimplantation embryos. Reproduction, 72(1), pp. 9–13.Google Scholar

Maruthini, D., Harris, S.E., Barth, J.H. et al., 2014. The effect of metformin treatment in vivo on acute and long-term energy metabolism and progesterone production in vitro by granulosa cells from women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Human Reproduction, 29(10), pp. 02–2316.Google Scholar

Marei, W.F.A., De Bie, J., Mohey-Elsaeed, O. et al., 2017. Alpha-linolenic acid protects the developmental capacity of bovine cumulus–oocyte complexes matured under lipotoxic conditions in vitro†. Biology of Reproduction, 96(6), pp. 1181–96.Google Scholar

Gardner, D.K. & Leese, H.J., 1987 April. Assessment of embryo viability prior to transfer by the noninvasive measurement of glucose uptake. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 242(1), pp. 103–5.Google Scholar

Ferguson, E.M. & Leese, H.J., 1999. Triglyceride content of bovine oocytes and early embryos. Reproduction, 116(2), pp. 373–78.Google Scholar

Forsey, K.E., Ellis, P.J., Sargent, C.A., Sturmey, R.G. & Leese, H.J., 2013. Expression and localization of creatine kinase in the preimplantation embryo. Molecular Reproduction and Development, 80(3), pp. 185–92.Google Scholar

Gardner, D.K., Wale, P.L., Collins, R. & Lane, M., 2011. Glucose consumption of single post-compaction human embryos is predictive of embryo sex and live birth outcome. Human Reproduction, 26(8), pp. 1981–86.Google Scholar

Conaghan, J., Hardy, K., Handyside, A.H., Winston, R. M., & Leese, H.J., 1993. Selection criteria for human embryo transfer: a comparison of pyruvate uptake and morphology. Journal of Assisted …, 10(1), pp. 21–30.Google Scholar

Leese, H.J., Guerif, F., Allgar, V. et al., 2016. Biological optimization, the Goldilocks principle, and how much is lagom in the preimplantation embryo. Molecular Reproduction and Development, 83(9), pp. 748–54. doi:10.1002/mrd.22684.Google Scholar

Sturmey, R.G., Bermejo-Alvarez, P., Gutierrez-Adan, A. et al., 2010. Amino acid metabolism of bovine blastocysts: a biomarker of sex and viability. Molecular Reproduction and Development, 77(3), pp. 285–96.Google Scholar

Gardner, D.K. & Wale, P.L., 2013. Analysis of metabolism to select viable human embryos for transfer. Fertility and Sterility, 99(4), pp. 1062–72.Google Scholar

Hemmings, K.E., Maruthini, D., Vyjayanthi, S. et al., 2013 April. Picton HM. Amino acid turnover by human oocytes is influenced by gamete developmental competence, patient characteristics and gonadotrophin treatment. Hum Reprod, 28(4), pp. 1031–44.Google Scholar

Van Blerkom, J., Cox, H. & Davis, P., 2006. Regulatory roles for mitochondria in the peri-implantation mouse blastocyst: possible origins and developmental significance of differential DeltaPsim. Reproduction (Cambridge, England), 131(5), pp. 961–76.Google Scholar

Fridhandler, L., Hafez, E.S.E. & Pincus, G., 1957. Developmental changes in the respiratory activity of rabbit ova. Experimental Cell Research, 13(1), pp. 132–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tejera, A., Herrero, J., de Los Santos, M.J. et al.2011. Oxygen consumption is a quality marker for human oocyte competence conditioned by ovarian stimulation regimens. Fertility and Sterility, 96(3), pp. 618–23.e2.Google Scholar

Scott, L., Berntsen, J., Davies, D. et al., 2008. Human oocyte respiration-rate measurement – potential to improve oocyte and embryo selection? Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 17(4), pp. 461–69.Google Scholar

Lopes, A.S., Larsen, L.H., Ramsing, N. et al., 2005. Respiration rates of individual bovine in vitro-produced embryos measured with a novel, non-invasive and highly sensitive microsensor system. Reproduction (Cambridge, England), 130(5), pp. 669–79.Google Scholar

Kurosawa, H., Utsunomiya, H., Shiga, N. et al. 2016. Development of a new clinically applicable device for embryo evaluation which measures embryo oxygen consumption. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 31(10), pp. 2321–30.Google Scholar

Seli, E., Sakkas, D., Scott, R. et al., 2007. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling of embryo culture media using Raman and near-infrared spectroscopy correlates with reproductive potential of embryos in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility, 88(5), pp. 50–1357.Google Scholar

Seli, E., Vergouw, C.G., Morita, H. et al., 2010. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling as an adjunct to morphology for noninvasive embryo assessment in women undergoing single embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility, 94(2), pp. 535–42.Google Scholar

Vergouw, C.G., Botros, L.L., Judge, K. et al., 2011. Non-invasive viability assessment of day-4 frozen–thawed human embryos using near infrared spectroscopy. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 23(6), pp. 769–76.Google Scholar

Pudakalakatti, S.M., Uppangala, S., D’Souza, F. et al., 2013. NMR studies of preimplantation embryo metabolism in human assisted reproductive techniques: a new biomarker for assessment of embryo implantation potential. NMR in Biomedicine, 26(1), pp. 20–27.Google Scholar

D’Souza, F., Pudakalakatti, S.M., Uppangala, S. et al. 2016. Unraveling the association between genetic integrity and metabolic activity in pre-implantation stage embryos. Scientific Reports, 6, p. 37291.Google Scholar

Wallace, M., Cottell, E., Cullinane, J. et al., 2014. ¹ H NMR based metabolic profiling of day 2 spent embryo media correlates with implantation potential. Systems Biology in Reproductive Medicine, 60(1), pp. 58–63.Google Scholar

Nadal-Desbarats, L., Veau, S., Blasco, H. et al., 2013. Is NMR metabolic profiling of spent embryo culture media useful to assist in vitro human embryo selection? Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, 26(2), pp.193–202.Google Scholar

McKeegan, P.J. & Sturmey, R.G., 2012. The role of fatty acids in oocyte and early embryo development. Reproduction, Fertility, and Development, 24(1), pp. 59–67.Google Scholar

Dunning, K.R., Russell, D.L., Robker, R.L. et al., 2014. Lipids and oocyte developmental competence: the role of fatty acids and oxidation. Reproduction, 148(1), pp. R15–R27.Google Scholar

Leary, C., Leese, H.J. & Sturmey, R.G., 2015. Human embryos from overweight and obese women display phenotypic and metabolic abnormalities. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 30, pp. 122–32.Google Scholar

Lagarde, M., Géloën, A., Record, M., Vance, D. & Spener, F., 2003. Lipidomics is emerging. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids, 1634(3), p. 61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Roberts, L.D., McCombie, G., Titman, C.M. & Griffin, J.L., 2008. A matter of fat: An introduction to lipidomic profiling methods. Journal of Chromatography B, 871(2), pp. 174–81.Google Scholar

Vilella, F., Ramirez, L.B. & Simón, C., 2013. Lipidomics as an emerging tool to predict endometrial receptivity. Fertility and Sterility, 99(4), pp. 1100–06.Google Scholar

Belaz, K.R.A., Tata, A., França, M.R. et al. 2016. Phospholipid profile and distribution in the receptive oviduct and uterus during early diestrus in cattle. Biol Reprod, 95(6), pp.1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Siristatidis, C., Sergentanis, T.N., Vogiatzi, P. et al., 2015. In vitro maturation in women with vs. without polycystic ovarian syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis F. Qu, ed. PLOS ONE, 10(8), p.e0134696.Google Scholar

Handyside, AH, Kontogianni, EH, Hardy, K, Winston, RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 1990;344(6268): 768–70.Google Scholar

Munné, S, Dailey, T, Sultan, KM, Grifo, J, Cohen, J. The use of first polar bodies for preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy. Human Reprod 1995;10: 1015–21 .Google Scholar

Verlinsky, Y, Cieslak, J, Freidine, M et al. Pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in situ hybridisation. Mol. Hum Reprod. 1995;10: 1923–27.Google Scholar

Harper, J., Coonen, E., De Rycke, M. et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD Consortium steering committee. Hum. Reprod. 2010; 25: 821–23.Google Scholar

Harton, G, Magli, C, Lundin, Kersti et al. JC ESHRE PGD consortium/embryology special interest group-best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Human Reproduction 2010;26:41–46.Google Scholar

De Rycke, M, Belva, F, Goossens, V et al.ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIII: cycles from January to December 2010 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2011. Hum Reprod 2015;30: 1763–89 .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gianaroli, L, Magli, MC, Pomante, A et al. Blastocentesis: a source of DNA for preimplantation genetic testing. Results from a pilot study. Fertil Steril 2014 December;102(6): 1692–9.Google Scholar

Ruangvutilert, P, Delhanty, JDA, Rodeck, C, Harper, JC. Relative efficiency of FISH on metaphase and interphase nuclei from non-mosaic trisomic or triploid fibroblast cultures. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2000;20: 159–62.Google Scholar

Rubio, C, Giménez, C, Fernández, E et al. Spanish interest group in preimplantation genetics, Spanish society for the study of the biology of reproduction. The importance of good practice in preimplantation genetic screening: critical viewpoints. Hum Reprod. 2009;24: 2045–47 .Google Scholar

Rubio, C, Bellver, J, Rodrigo, L et al. Preimplantation genetic screening using fluorescence in situ hybridization in patients with repetitive implantation failure and advanced maternal age: two randomized trials. Fertil Steril. 2013;99: 1400–07 .Google Scholar

Forman, EJ, Hong, KH, Ferry, KM et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:100–07.Google Scholar

Scott, RT Jr, Upham, KM, Forman, EJ et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:697–703.Google Scholar

Vera-Rodríguez, M, Michel, CE, Mercader, A et al. Distribution patterns of segmental aneuploidies in human blastocysts identified by next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2016;105: 1047–55 .Google Scholar

Ruttanajit, T, Chanchamroen, S, Cram, DS et al.Detection and quantitation of chromosomal mosaicism in human blastocysts using copy number variation sequencing. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36: 154–62.Google Scholar

Rubio, C, Bellver, J, Rodrigo, L et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2017;107: 1122–29 .Google Scholar

Mastenbroek, S, Twisk, M, van der Veen, F, Repping, S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17: 454–66.Google Scholar

Musters, AM, Repping, S, Korevaar, JC et al. Pregnancy outcome after preimplantation genetic screening or natural conception in couples with unexplained recurrent miscarriage: A systematic review of the best available evidence. Fertil Steril. 2011;95: 2153–57 .Google Scholar

Blockeel, C, Schutyser, V, De Vos, A et al. Prospectively randomized controlled trial of PGS in IVF/ICSI patients with poor implantation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17: 848–54.Google Scholar

Garcia-Herrero, S, Rodrigo, L, Mateu, E et al. Medecine therapeutique/Medecine de la reproduction, gyn_ecologie et endocrinologie. John Libbey Eurotext, 2014;14: 112–19.Google Scholar

Rodrigo, L, Mateu, E, Mercader, A et al. New tools for embryo selection: comprehensive chromosome screening by array comparative genomic hybridization. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:517125.Google Scholar

Coates, A, Hesla, JS, Hurliman, A et al. Use of suboptimal sperm increases the risk of aneuploidy of the sex chromosomes in preimplantation blastocyst embryos. Fertil Steril. 2015;104: 866–72.Google Scholar

Al-Asmar, N, Peinado, V, Vera, M et al. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos from couples with a previous aneuploid miscarriage. Fertil Steril. 2012;98: 145–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yang, Z, Liu, J, Collins, GS et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet 2012;5:24.Google Scholar

Ravichandran, K, McCaffrey, C, Grifo, J et al.Mitochondrial DNA quantification as a tool for embryo viability assessment: retrospective analysis of data from single euploid blastocyst transfers. Hum Reprod. 2017;32: 1282–92 .Google Scholar

Treff, NR, Zhan, Y, Tao, X et al. Levels of trophectoderm mitochondrial DNA do not predict the reproductive potential of sibling embryos. Hum Reprod. 2017;32: 954–62.Google Scholar

Feichtinger, M, Vaccari, E, Carli, L et al. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic screening using array comparative genomic hybridization on spent culture media: a proof-of-concept pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017; pii: S1472-6483(17)30147–5.Google Scholar

Victor, AR, Brake, AJ, Tyndall, JC et al. Accurate quantitation of mitochondrial DNA reveals uniform levels in human blastocysts irrespective of ploidy, age, or implantation potential. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:34–42.Google Scholar

Liu, W, Liu, J, Du, H et al. Non-invasive pre-implantation aneuploidy screening and diagnosis of beta thalassemia IVSII654 mutation using spent embryo culture medium. Ann Med. 2017;49: 319–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gebhart, MB, Hines, RS, Penman, A, Holland, AC. How do patient perceived determinants influence the decision-making process to accept or decline preimplantation genetic screening? Fertil Steril 2016;105: 188–93.Google Scholar

Hens, K, Dondorp, W, Handyside, AH et al. Dynamics and ethics of comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing. A review of the challenges. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19: 366–75.Google Scholar

Greco, E, Minasi, MG, Fiorentino, F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med.2015;373:2089–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Harper, J, Jackson, E, Sermon, K et al.(2017). Adjunts in the IVF laboratory: where is the evidence for ‘add-on’ interventions? Human Reproduction, 2: 485–91.Google Scholar

Gardner, DK and Lane, M. Alleviation of the “2- cell block” and development to the blastocyst of CFI mouse embryos: role of amino acids, EDTA and physical parameters. Hum Reprod 1996; 11:2701–12.Google Scholar

Gardner, DK. Development of serum-free media for the culture and transfer of human blastocysts. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 Suppl 4:218–25.Google Scholar

Edwards, RG, Brody, S. Principles and Practice of Assisted Human Reproduction. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, 1995.Google Scholar

della Ragione, T, Verheyen, G, Papanikolaou, EG et al. Developmental stage on day –5 and fragmentation rate on day –3 can influence the implantation potential of top-quality blastocysts in IVF cycles with single embryo transfer. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2007; 5:2.Google Scholar

Gardner, DK and Schoolcraft, WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen, R, Mortimer, D (eds.) Toward Reproductive Certainty: Fertility and Genetics Beyond. Parthenon Publishing, Carnforth, UK, 1999, pp. 378–88.Google Scholar

Papanikolaou, EG, Kolibianakis, EM, Tournaye, H et al.Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:91–99.Google Scholar

Wilson, M, Hartke, K, Kiehl, M et al. Transfer of blastocysts and morulae on day 5. Fertil Steril 2004; 82:327–33.Google Scholar

Fragouli, E, Alfarawati, S, Spath, K, Wells, D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod 2014; 20, 117–26.Google Scholar

Staessen, C, Platteau, P, Van Assche, E et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:2849–58.Google Scholar

Blake, DA, Proctor, M, Johnson, NP The merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2004;19:795–780.Google Scholar

Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Quinteiro Retamar, AM, Alvarez Sedo, CR, Blake, D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD002118.Google Scholar

Maheshwari, A, Hamilton, M, Bhattacharya, S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2016; 32:142–46.Google Scholar

Papanikolaou, EG, D’haeseleer, E, Verheycn, G et al. Live birth rate is significantly higher after blastocyst transfer than after cleavage-stage transfer when at least four embryos are available on day 3 of culture. A randomized prospective study. Human Reprod 2005; 20:3198–203.Google Scholar

Papanikolaou, EG, Camus, M, Fatemi, HM et al. Early pregnancy loss is significantly higher after day 3 single embryo transfer than after day 5 single blastocyst transfer in GnRH antagonist stimulated IVF cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:60–65.Google Scholar

Kaur, P, Swarankar, ML, Maheshwari, M, Acharya, V. A comparative study between cleavage stage embryo transfer at day 3 and blastocyst stage transfer at day 5 in IVF/ICSI on clinical pregnancy rates. Indian Journal of Clinical Practice 2014; 24:663–67.Google Scholar

Aziminekoo, E, Mohseni Salehi, MS, Kalantari, V et al. Pregnancy outcome after blastocyst stage transfer comparing to early cleavage stage embryo transfer. Gynecol Endocrinol 2015; 31:880–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fernández-Shaw, S, Cercas, R, Brana, C, Villas, C, Pons, I. Ongoing and cumulative pregnancy rate after cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer using vitrification for cryopreservation: impact of age on the results. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015; 32:177–84.Google Scholar

Yang, Z, Liu, J, Collins, GS et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet 2012;5:1–8.Google Scholar

Forman, EJ, Hong, KH, Ferry, KM et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2013b; 100:100–07. e101.Google Scholar

Scott, RT Jr, Upham, KM, Forman, EJ et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2013a; 100: 697–703.Google Scholar

Kedem, A, Haas, J, Geva, LL et al. Ongoing pregnancy rates in women with low and extremely low AMH levels. A multivariate analysis of 769 cycles. He B, ed. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e81629.Google Scholar

Vitthala, S, Gelbaya, TA, Brison, DR, Fitzgerald, CT, Nardo, LG. The risk of monozygotic twins after assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2009; 15: 45–55.Google Scholar

Papanikolaou, EG, Fatemi, H, Venetis, C et al. Monozygotic twinning is not increased after single blastocyst transfer compared with single cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010: 93:592–97.Google Scholar

Abuzeid, MI, Bolonduro, O, La Chance, J et al. Cumulative live birth rate and assisted reproduction: impact of female age and transfer day. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2014;6:145–49.Google Scholar

Dar, S, Lazer, T, Shah, PS, Librach, CL. Neonatal outcomes among singleton births after blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:439–48.Google Scholar

Maheshwari, A and Bhattacharya, S. Elective frozen replacement cycles for all: ready for prime time? Hum Reprod 2013;28:6–9.Google Scholar

Rizos, D, Lonergan, P, Boland, MP et al. Analysis of differential messenger RNA expression between bovine blastocysts produce in different culture systems: implications for blastocyst quality. Biol Reprod 2002; 66:589–95.Google Scholar

Oron, G, Esh-Broder, E, Son, WY. Holzer, H, Tulandi, T. Predictive value of maternal serum human chorionic gonadotropin levels in pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization with single cleavage and single blastocyst embryo transfers. Fertil Sterility 2015;103:1526–31.Google Scholar

Makinen, S, Soderstrom-Anttila, V, Vainio, J, Suikkari, AM, Tuuri, T. Does long in vitro culture promote large for gestational age babies? Hum Reprod 2013;28:828–34.Google Scholar

Zhu, J, Lin, S, Li, M et al. Effect of in vitro culture period on birthweight of singleton newborns. Hum Reprod 2014; 29:448–54.Google Scholar

Chang, HJ, Lee, JR, Jee, BC, Suh, CS, Kim, S H. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009;91:2381–90.Google Scholar

Racowsky, C, Jackson, KV, Cekleniak, NA et al. The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:558–64 .Google Scholar

Kyrou, D, Kolibianakis, EM, Venetis, CA et al. How to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Fertil Steril 2009;91:749–66.Google Scholar

Egea, RR, Puchalt, NG, Escrivá, MM, Varghese, AC. OMICS: Current and future perspectives in reproductive medicine and technology. J Hum Reprod Sci 2014; 7:73–92.Google Scholar

Talbi, S, Hamilton, AE, Vo, KC et al. Molecular phenotyping of human endometrium distinguishes menstrual cycle phases and underlying biological processes in normo-ovulatory women. Endocrinology 2006;147:1097–1121.Google Scholar

Ruiz-Alonso, M, Blesa, D, Simón, C. The genomics of the human endometrium. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1822:1931–42.Google Scholar

Karande, VC, Morris, R, Chapman, C, Rinehart, J, Gleicher, N. Impact of the “physician factor” on pregnancy rates in a large assisted reproductive technology program: do too many cooks spoil the broth? Fertil Steril. 1999 June;71(6):1001–09.Google Scholar

van Weering, HG, Schats, R, McDonnell, J, Hompes, PG. Ongoing pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization are not dependent on the physician performing the embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2005 February;83(2):316–20.Google Scholar

Salha, OH, Lamb, VK, Balen, AH. A postal survey of embryo transfer practice in the UK. Hum Reprod. 2001 April;16(4):686–90.Google Scholar

López, MJ, García, D, Rodríguez, A et al. Individualized embryo transfer training: timing and performance. Hum Reprod. 2014 July;29(7):1432–37.Google Scholar

Eaton, JL1, Zhang, X2, Barnes, RB2. Embryo transfer by reproductive endocrinology fellows vs attending physicians: are live birth rates comparable? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 November;211(5):494.e1–5.Google Scholar

Fanchin, R, Righini, C, Olivennes, F et al. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998 July;13(7):1968–74.Google Scholar

Woolcott, R, Stanger, J. Potentially important variables identified by transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1997 May;12(5):963–66.Google Scholar

Nabi, A, Awonuga, A, Birch, H, Barlow, S, Stewart, B. Multiple attempts at embryo transfer: does this affect in-vitro fertilization treatment outcome? Hum Reprod. 1997 June;12(6):1188–90.Google Scholar

Eskandar, MA, Abou-setta, AM, El-Amin, M, Almushait, MA, Sobande, AA. Removal of cervical mucus prior to embryo transfer improves pregnancy rates in women undergoing assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14:308–13.Google Scholar

Visschers, BA, Bots, RS, Peeters, MF, Mo l, BW, van Dessel, JH. Removal of cervical mucus: effect on pregnancy rates in IVF/ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;15:310–15.Google Scholar

Katariya, KO, Bates, GW, Robinson, RD, Arthur, NJ, Propst, AM. Does the timing of mock embryo transfer affect in vitro fertilization implantation and pregnancy rates? Fertil Steril 2007;88:1462–64.Google Scholar

Lesny, P, Killick, SR, Tetlow, RL, Robinson, J, Maguiness, SD. Embryo transfer–can we learn anything new from the observation of junctional zone contractions? Hum Reprod. 1998 June;13(6):1540–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kovacs, GT. What factors are important for successful embryo transfer after in-vitro fertilization? Hum Reprod. 1999 March;14(3):590–92.Google Scholar

Coroleu, B, Barri, PN, Carreras, O et al. The influence of the depth of embryo replacement into the uterine cavity on implantation rates after IVF: a controlled, ultrasound-guided study. Hum Reprod. 2002 February;17(2):341–46.Google Scholar

van Weering, HG, Schats, R, McDonnell, J et al. The impact of the embryo transfer catheter on the pregnancy rate in IVF. Hum Reprod. 2002 March;17(3):666–70.Google Scholar

McDonald, JA, Norman, RJ. A randomized controlled trial of a soft double lumen embryo transfer catheter versus a firm single lumen catheter: significant improvements in pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod. 2002 June;17(6):1502–06.Google Scholar

Abou-Setta, AM, Al-Inany, HG, Mansour, RT, Serour, GI, Aboulghar, MA. Soft versus firm embryo transfer catheters for assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2005 Nov;20(11):3114–21.Google Scholar

Dorn, C, Reinsberg, J, Schlebusch, H et al. Serum oxytocin concentration during embryo transfer procedure. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1999 November;87(1):77–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tur-Kaspa, I, Yuval, Y, Bider, D et al. Difficult or repeated sequential embryo transfers do not adversely affect in-vitro fertilization pregnancy rates or outcome. Hum Reprod. 1998 September;13(9):2452–55.Google Scholar

Moon, HS, Park, SH, Lee, JO, Kim, KS, Joo, BS. Treatment with piroxicam before embryo transfer increases the pregnancy rate after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2004 October;82(4):816–20.Google Scholar

Ng, EH, Li, RH, Chen, L et al. A randomized double blind comparison of atosiban in patients undergoing IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2014 December;29(12):2687–94.Google Scholar

Sallam, HN, Farrag, A, Ezzeldin, F, Agameya, A, Sallam, AN. The importance of flushing the cervical canal with cluture medium prior to embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;74(3)suppl 11: S64–S65.Google Scholar

Derks, RS, Farquhar, C, Mol, BW, Buckingham, K, Heineman, MJ. Techniques for preparation prior to embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 October 7;(4):CD007682. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007682.pub2. Review.Google Scholar

Nielsen, IK, Lindhard, A, Loft, A, Ziebe, S, Andersen, AN. A Wallace malleable stylet for difficult embryo transfer in an in vitro fertilization program: a case-control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002 February;81(2):133–7.Google Scholar

Groutz, A, Lessing, JB, Wolf, Y et al. Comparison of transmyometrial and transcervical embryo transfer in patients with previously failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles and/or cervical stenosis. Fertil Steril. 1997 June;67(6):1073–76.Google Scholar

Sharif, K, Afnan, M, Lenton, W et al. Transmyometrial embryo transfer after difficult immediate mock transcervical transfer. Fertil Steril. 1996 May;65(5):1071–74.Google Scholar

García-Velasco, JA, Isaza, V, Martinez-Salazar, J et al. Transabdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer does not increase pregnancy rates in oocyte recipients. Fertil Steril. 2002 September;78(3):534–39.Google Scholar

Kosmas, IP, Janssens, R, De Munch, L, et al. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer does not offer any benefit in clinical outcome: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007;22:1327–34.Google Scholar

Buckett, WM. A meta-analysis of ultrasound-guided versus clinical touch embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2003 October;80(4):1037–41.Google Scholar

Brown, J, Buckingham, K, Abou-Setta, AM, Buckett, W. Ultrasound versus ‘clinical touch’ for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 January 20;(1):CD006107. ReviewGoogle Scholar

Karimian, L, Rezazadeh, VM, Baghestani, AR, Moeini, A. A prospective randomized comparison of two commercial embryo transfer medium in IVF/ ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod 2004;19 (Suppl1):i52.Google Scholar

Bontekoe, S, Blake, D, Heineman, MJ, Williams, EC, Johnson, N. Adherence compounds in embryo transfer media for assisted reproductive technologies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 July 7;(7):CD007421.Google Scholar

Mansour, R, Tawab, N, Kamal, O et al. Intrauterine injection of human chorionic gonadotropin before embryo transfer significantly improves the implantation and pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective randomized study. Fertil and Steril. 2011;96(6):1370–4.Google Scholar

Ye, H, Hu, J, He, W, Zhang, Y, Li, C. The efficacy of intrauterine injection of human chorionic gonadotropin before embryo transfer in assisted reproductive cycles: Meta-analysis. J Int Med Res. 2015 December;43(6):738–46.Google Scholar

Leong, M, Leung, C, Tucker, M, Wong, C, Chan, H. Ultrasound-assisted embryo transfer. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1986 December;3(6):383–85.Google Scholar

Groeneveld, E, de Leeuw, B, Vergouw, CG et al. Standardization of catheter load speed during embryo transfer: comparison of manual and pump-regulated embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012 February;24(2):163–69.Google Scholar

Abou-Setta, AM, Peters, LR, D’Angelo, A et al. Post-embryo transfer interventions for assisted reproduction technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 August 27;8:CD006567.Google Scholar

Gaikwad, S, Garrido, N, Cobo, A, Pellicer, A, Remohi, J. Bed rest after embryo transfer negatively affects in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013 September;100(3):729–35.Google Scholar

Baba, K, Ishihara, O, Hayashi, N et al. Where does the embryo implant after embryo transfer in humans? Fertil Steril. 2000 January;73(1):123–25.Google Scholar

Refaat, B, Dalton, E, Ledger, WL. Ectopic pregnancy secondary to in vitro fertilisation-embryo transfer: pathogenic mechanisms and management strategies. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015 April 12;13:30.Google Scholar

Whittingham, DG, Leibo, SP, Mazur, P. Survival of mouse embryos, frozen to −196°C and −289°C. Science 1972;178:411–14.Google Scholar

Fahy, GM, MacFarlane, DR, Angell, CA et al. Vitrification as an approach to cryopreservation. Cryobiology 1984;21:407–26.Google Scholar

Fahy, GM Vitrification: a new approach to organ cryopreservation. In: Transplantation: Approaches to Graft Rejection, pp. 305–35, 1986 Ed. Merryman, HT, Alan R Liss, New York.Google Scholar

Seki, S, Mazur, P. The dominance of warming rate over cooling rate in the survival of mouse oocytes subjected to a vitrification procedure. Cryobiology 2009;59:75–82.Google Scholar

Mazur, P, Seki, S. Survival of mouse oocytes after being cooled in a vitrification solution to −196°C at 95° to 70,000 °C/min and warmed at 610° to 118,000 °C/min: A new paradigm for cryopreservation by vitrification. Cryobiology 2011;62:1–7.Google Scholar

Rall, WF and Fahy, GM. Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at –196 °C by vitrification. Nature 1985;313:573–75.Google Scholar

Kuleshova, L, Gianaroli, L, Magli, C et al. Birth following vitrification of a small number of human oocytes: case report. Hum Reprod 1999;14:3077–79.Google Scholar

Yoon, TK, Chung, HM, Lim, JM et al. Pregnancy and delivery of healthy infants developed from vitrified oocytes in a stimulated in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer program. Fertil Steril 2000;74:180–81.Google Scholar

Walker, DL, Tummon, IS, Hammitt, DG et al. Vitrification versus programmable rate freezing of late stage murine embryos: a randomized comparison prior to application in clinical IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;8:558–68.Google Scholar

Trapphoff, T. Vitrification of oocytes: Imprinting and disturbance in spindle formation and chromosome segregation. In: Vitrification in Assisted Reproduction (2nd. Edition), Chapter 12, p. 105116, 2015 Ed. Tucker, Michael J, Liebermann, Juergen, Informa Healthcare, London, UK.Google Scholar

Takahashi, K, Mukaida, T, Goto, T et al. Perinatal outcome of blastocyst transfer with vitrification using cryoloop: a 4-year follow-up study. Fertil Steril 2005;84:88–92.Google Scholar

Liebermann, J, Tucker, MJ. Comparison of vitrification versus conventional cryopreservation of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts during clinical application. Fertil Steril 2006;86:20–26.Google Scholar

Liebermann, J Vitrification of human blastocysts: an update. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19: Suppl 4: 105–14.Google Scholar

Liebermann, J, Nawroth, F, Isachenko, V et al. Potential importance of vitrification in reproductive medicine. Biol Reprod 2002;67:1671–80.Google Scholar

Liebermann, J, Dietl, J, Vanderzwalmen, P et al. Recent developments in human oocyte, embryo and blastocyst vitrification: where are we now? Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:623–33.Google Scholar

Vanderzwalmen, P, Bertin, G, Debauche, Ch et al. Births after vitrification at morula and blastocyst stages: effect of artificial reduction of the blastocoelic cavity before vitrification. Hum Reprod 2002;17:744–51.Google Scholar

Mukaida, T, Oka, C, Goto, T, Takahashi, K. Artificial shrinkage of blastocoeles using either a microneedle or a laser pulse prior to the cooling steps of vitrification improves survival rate and pregnancy outcome of vitrified human blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2006;21:3246–52.Google Scholar

Edashige, K, Kasai, M The movement of water and cryoprotectants in mammalian oocytes and embryos: Membrane permeability and aquaporines. In: Vitrification in Assisted Reproduction (2nd.Edition), Chapter 5, pp. 47–54, 2015 Ed. Tucker, Michael J, Liebermann, Juergen, Informa Healthcare, London, UK.Google Scholar

Son, WY, Yoon, SH, Yoon, HJ, Lee, SM, Lim, JH. Pregnancy outcome following transfer of human blastocysts vitrified on electron microscopy grids after induced collapse of the blastocoele. Hum Reprod 2003;18:137–39.Google Scholar

Hiraoka, K, Hiraoka, K, Kinutani, M, Kinutani, K. Blastocoele collapse by micropipetting prior to vitrification gives excellent survival and pregnancy outcomes for human day 5 and 6 expanded blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2884–88.Google Scholar

Mukaida, T, Oka, C, Goto, T, Takahashi, K. Artificial shrinkage of blastocoeles using either a micro-needle or a laser pulse prior to the cooling steps of vitrification improves survival rate and pregnancy outcome of vitrified human blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2006:21:3246–52.Google Scholar

Iwayama, H, Hochi, S, Yamashita, M. In vitro and in vivo viability of human blastocysts collapsed by laser pulse or osmotic shocks prior to vitrification. J Assist Reprod Genet 2011;28:355–61.Google Scholar

Hur, YS, Park, JH, Ryu, EK et al. Lim JH Effect of artificial shrinkage on clinical outcome in fresh blastocyst transfer cycle. Clin Exp Repro Med 2011;38:87–92.Google Scholar

Liebermann, J, Conaghan, J. ()Artificial collapse prior blastocyst vitrification: Improvement of clinical outcome. The Journal of Clinical Embryology 2013;16(1).Google Scholar

Kazemi, P, Dashtizad, M, Shamsara, M et al. Effect of blastocoel fluid reduction before vitrification on gene expression in mouse blastocysts. Molecular Reproduction and Development 2016;83:735–42.Google Scholar

Larman, MG, Sheehan, CB, Gardner, DK. Calcium-free vitrification reduces cryoprotectant-induced zona pellucida hardening and increases fertilization rates in mouse oocytes. Reproduction 2006;131:53–61.Google Scholar

Conaghan, J, Vaccari, S Development and hatching of human blastocysts after vitrification and warming. In: Vitrification in Assisted Reproduction (2nd. Edition), Chapter 20, pp. 175–84, 2015 Ed. Tucker, Michael J, Liebermann, Juergen, Informa Healthcare, London, UK.Google Scholar

Pinborg, A, Henningsen, AA, Loft, A et al. Large baby syndrome in singleton born after frozen embryo transfers (FET): Is it due the maternal factors or the cryotechnique? Hum Reprod 2014;29:618–27.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2014 Assisted Reproductive Technology Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report. Atlanta (GA): US Dept. of Health and Human Services; 2016.Google Scholar

Maheshwari, A, Bhattacharya, S. Elective frozen replacement cycles for all: ready for prime time? Hum Reprod. 2013 January;28(1):6–9.Google Scholar

Roque, M. Freeze-all policy: is it time for that? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015 February;32(2): 171–76.Google Scholar

Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, Aguirre, M, Hudson, C. Clinical rationale for cryopreservation of entire embryo cohorts in lieu of fresh transfer. Fertil Steril. 2014 July;102(1):3–9.Google Scholar

Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC et al. 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 August;96(2): 344–48.Google Scholar

Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC et al. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers in high responders. Fertil Steril. 2011 August;96(2): 516–18.Google Scholar

Chen, ZJ, Shi, Y, Sun, Y et al. Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2016 August 11;375(6): 523–33.Google Scholar

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 August;98(2): 368–77.Google Scholar

Wennerholm, UB, Henningsen, AK, Romundstad, LB et al. Perinatal outcomes of children born after frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a Nordic cohort study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod. 2013 September;28(9): 2545–53.Google Scholar

Kalra, SK, Ratcliffe, SJ, Coutifaris, C, Molinaro, T, Barnhart, KT. Ovarian stimulation and low birth weight in newborns conceived through in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 October;118(4): 863–71.Google Scholar

Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Bedient, CE, Garner, FC. Comparison of birth weights in patients randomly assigned to fresh or frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2016 August;106(2): 317–21.Google Scholar

Rodriguez-Purata, J, Lee, J, Whitehouse, M et al. Reproductive outcome is optimized by genomic embryo screening, vitrification, and subsequent transfer into a prepared synchronous endometrium. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 March;33(3): 401–12.Google Scholar

Grifo, J, Kofinas, J, Schoolcraft, WB. The practice of in vitro fertilization according to the published literature. Fertil Steril. 2014 September;102(3): 658–59.Google Scholar

Kolibianakis, E, Bourgain, C, Albano, C et al. Effect of ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonists, and human chorionic gonadotropin on endometrial maturation on the day of oocyte pick-up. Fertil Steril. 2002 November;78(5): 1025–29.Google Scholar

Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, Aguirre, M, Ross, R. Contrasting patterns in in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates among fresh autologous, fresh oocyte donor, and cryopreserved cycles with the use of day 5 or day 6 blastocysts may reflect differences in embryo-endometrium synchrony. Fertil Steril. 2008 January;89(1):20–26.Google Scholar

Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, Aguirre, M, Thomas, S. Large blastocyst diameter, early blastulation, and low preovulatory serum progesterone are dominant predictors of clinical pregnancy in fresh autologous cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008 August;90(2): 302–09.Google Scholar

Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Restrepo, H et al. Matched-cohort comparison of single-embryo transfers in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2013 February;99(2): 389–92.Google Scholar

Venetis, CA, Kolibianakis, EM, Bosdou, JK, Tarlatzis, BC. Progesterone elevation and probability of pregnancy after IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 60 000 cycles. Hum Reprod Update. 2013 September–October;19(5): 433–57.Google Scholar

Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC et al. Embryo cryopreservation rescues cycles with premature luteinization. Fertil Steril. 2010 February;93(2): 636–41.Google Scholar

Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Desai, J et al. The risk of embryo-endometrium asynchrony increases with maternal age after ovarian stimulation and IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 July;33(1):50–55.Google Scholar

Levi, AJ, Drews, MR, Bergh, PA, Miller, BT, Scott, RT Jr. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation does not adversely affect endometrial receptivity in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2001 October;76(4): 670–74.Google Scholar

Vuong, LT, Dang, VQ, Ho, TM et al. Freeze-all versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI, a randomised controlled trial (NCT02471573). Fertil Steril. 2018 January106(3):e376.Google Scholar

Roque, M, Lattes, K, Serra, S et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013 January;99(1): 156–62.Google Scholar

Perkins, KM, Boulet, SL, Kissin, DM, Jamieson, DJ; National ART Surveillance (NASS) Group. Risk of ectopic pregnancy associated with assisted reproductive technology in the United States, 2001–2011. Obstet Gynecol. 2015 January;125(1):70–78.Google Scholar

Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, De Leon, L et al. Frozen-thawed embryo transfer is associated with a significantly reduced incidence of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2012 December;98(6): 1490–94.Google Scholar

Mainigi, MA, Olalere, D, Burd, I et al. Peri-implantation hormonal milieu: elucidating mechanisms of abnormal placentation and fetal growth. Biol Reprod. 2014 February 13;90(2):26.Google Scholar

Shah, PS, Balkhair, T, Ohlsson, A et al. Intention to become pregnant and low birth weight and preterm birth: a systematic review. Matern Child Health J. 2011 February;15(2): 205–16.Google Scholar

Kolibianakis, EM, Albano, C, Camus, M et al. Prolongation of the follicular phase in in vitro fertilization results in a lower ongoing pregnancy rate in cycles stimulated with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists. Fertil Steril. 2004 July;82(1): 102–07.Google Scholar

Rosen, MP, Shen, S, Dobson, AT et al. A quantitative assessment of follicle size on oocyte developmental competence. Fertil Steril. 2008 September;90(3): 684–90.Google Scholar

Cakmak, H, Katz, A, Cedars, MI, Rosen, MP. Effective method for emergency fertility preservation: random-start controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2013 December;100(6): 1673–80.Google Scholar

Kuang, Y, Chen, Q, Fu, Y et al. Medroxyprogesterone acetate is an effective oral alternative for preventing premature luteinizing hormone surges in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2015 July;104(1):62–70.Google Scholar

Kol, S. Luteolysis induced by a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is the key to prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2004 January;81(1):1–5.Google Scholar

Engmann, L, Benadiva, C, Humaidan, P. GnRH agonist trigger for the induction of oocyte maturation in GnRH antagonist IVF cycles: a SWOT analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 March;32(3): 274–85.Google Scholar

Youssef, MA, Van der Veen, F, Al-Inany, HG et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in antagonist-assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 October 31;(10):CD008046.Google Scholar

Devroey, P, Polyzos, NP, Blockeel, C. An OHSS-Free clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011 October;26(10): 2593–97.Google Scholar

Roque, M, Valle, M, Guimarães, F, Sampaio, M, Geber, S. Cost-effectiveness of the freeze-all policy. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2015 August 1;19(3): 125–30.Google Scholar

Papaleo, E, Pagliardini, L, Vanni, VS et al. A direct healthcare cost analysis of the cryopreserved versus fresh transfer policy at the blastocyst stage. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. In press.Google Scholar

Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, Aguirre, M, Hudson, C. Freeze-all at the blastocyst or bipronuclear stage: a randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2015;104: 1138–44.Google Scholar

Himelstein-Braw, R, Peters, H and Faber, M. Morphological study of the ovaries of leukaemic children. Br J Cancer 1978; 38:82–87.Google Scholar

Chapman, RM, Sutcliffe, SB and Malpas, JS.Cytotoxic-induced ovarian failure in women with Hodgkin’s disease. I. Hormone function. JAMA 1979; 242:1877–81.Google Scholar

Swerdlow, AJ, Cooke, R, Bates, A et al. Risk of premature menopause after treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106.Google Scholar

Bramswig, JH, Riepenhausen, M and Schellong, G. Parenthood in adult female survivors treated for Hodgkin’s lymphoma during childhood and adolescence: a prospective, longitudinal study. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16:667–75.Google Scholar

Wallace, WH, Thomson, AB, Saran, F and Kelsey, TW. Predicting age of ovarian failure after radiation to a field that includes the ovaries. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 62:738–44.Google Scholar

Wallace, WH, Critchley, HO and Anderson, RA. Optimizing reproductive outcome in children and young people with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:3–5.Google Scholar

Lawrenz, B, Fehm, T, von Wolff, M et al.Reduced pretreatment ovarian reserve in premenopausal female patients with Hodgkin lymphoma or non-Hodgkin-lymphoma–evaluation by using antimullerian hormone and retrieved oocytes. Fertil Steril 2012; 98:141–44.Google Scholar

Friedler, S, Koc, O, Gidoni, Y, Raziel, A and Ron-El, R. Ovarian response to stimulation for fertility preservation in women with malignant disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012; 97:125–33.Google Scholar

Anderson, RA, Mitchell, RT, Kelsey, TW et al.Cancer treatment and gonadal function: experimental and established strategies for fertility preservation in children and young adults. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015; 3:556–67.Google Scholar

Petrek, JA, Naughton, MJ, Case, LD et al.Incidence, time course, and determinants of menstrual bleeding after breast cancer treatment: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:1045–51.Google Scholar

Chow, EJ, Stratton, KL, Leisenring, WM et al. Pregnancy after chemotherapy in male and female survivors of childhood cancer treated between 1970 and 1999: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study cohort. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17:567–76.Google Scholar

Letourneau, JM, Ebbel, EE, Katz, PP et al. Acute ovarian failure underestimates age-specific reproductive impairment for young women undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. Cancer 2012; 118:1933–39.Google Scholar

Brook, JD, Gosden, RG and Chandley, AC. Maternal ageing and aneuploid embryos–evidence from the mouse that biological and not chronological age is the important influence. Hum Genet 1984; 66:41–45.Google Scholar

Anderson, RA, Adamson, D, Yellowlees, A et al.Administration of a GnRH agonist during chemotherapy during chemotherapy for breast cancer reduces ovarian toxicity in women aged under 40 years. ESHRE Meeting, Helskinki 2016:P488.Google Scholar

Anderson, RA, Rosendahl, M, Kelsey, TW and Cameron, DA. Pretreatment anti-Mullerian hormone predicts for loss of ovarian function after chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49:3404–11.Google Scholar

Su, HC, Haunschild, C, Chung, K et al.Prechemotherapy antimullerian hormone, age, and body size predict timing of return of ovarian function in young breast cancer patients. Cancer 2014; 120:3691–98.Google Scholar

De Vos, M, Smitz, J and Woodruff, TK. Fertility preservation in women with cancer. Lancet 2014; 384:1302–10.Google Scholar

Cobo, A, Garcia-Velasco, JA, Coello, A et al. Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation. Fertil Steril 2016; 105:755–64 e758.Google Scholar

Doyle, JO, Richter, KS, Lim, J et al.Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertil Steril 2016; 105:459–66 e452.Google Scholar

Donnez, J, Dolmans, MM, Pellicer, A et al. Restoration of ovarian activity and pregnancy after transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue: a review of 60 cases of reimplantation. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1503–13.Google Scholar

Van der Ven, H, Liebenthron, J, Beckmann, M et al. Ninety-five orthotopic transplantations in 74 women of ovarian tissue after cytotoxic treatment in a fertility preservation network: tissue activity, pregnancy and delivery rates. Hum Reprod 2016; 31:2031–41.Google Scholar

Dolmans, MM, Luyckx, V, Donnez, J, Andersen, CY and Greve, T. Risk of transferring malignant cells with transplanted frozen-thawed ovarian tissue. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1514–22.Google Scholar

Waxman, JH, Ahmed, R, Smith, D et al. Failure to preserve fertility in patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1987; 19:159–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Del Mastro, L, Boni, L, Michelotti, A et al. Effect of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue triptorelin on the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced early menopause in premenopausal women with breast cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 2011; 306 :269–76.Google Scholar

Moore, HC, Unger, JM, Phillips, KA et al. Goserelin for ovarian protection during breast-cancer adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:923–32.Google Scholar

Lambertini, M, Ceppi, M, Poggio, F et al. Ovarian suppression using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy to preserve ovarian function and fertility of breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. Ann Oncol 2015; 26:2408–19.Google Scholar

Leonard, R, Adamson, D, Bertelli, G et al. GnRH agonist for protection against ovarian toxicity during chemotherapy for early breast cancer: the Anglo Celtic Group OPTION trial. Ann Oncol 2017; 28:1811–16.Google Scholar

Demeestere, I, Brice, P, Peccatori, FA et al. No evidence for the benefit of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist in preserving ovarian function and fertility in lymphoma survivors treated with chemotherapy: final long-term report of a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2016.Google Scholar

Ferraretti, AP, La Marca A, , Fauser, BC, et.al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England). 2011;26(7): 1616–24.Google Scholar

Bozdag, G, Polat, M, Yarali, I, Yarali, H. Live birth rates in various subgroups of poor ovarian responders fulfilling the Bologna criteria. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2017: S1472–6483(17)30141–4. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.03.009.Google Scholar

Patrizio, P, Vaiarelli, A, Levi Setti, PE et al. How to define, diagnose and treat poor responders? Responses from a worldwide survey of IVF clinics. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2015;30: 581–92.Google Scholar

Boza, A, Cakar, E, Boza, B, et.al. Microdose flare-up gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus GnRH antagonist protocols in poor ovarian responders undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Journal of Reproduction & Infertility. 2016;17: 163–68.Google Scholar

Jeve, YB and Bhandari, HM. Effective treatment protocol for poor ovarian response: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2016;9:70–81.Google Scholar

Turgay Çelik, Gİ, Sütçü, HK, Akpak, YK, Akar, ME. A flexible multidose GnRH antagonist versus a microdose flare-up GnRH agonist combined with a flexible multidose GnRH antagonist protocol in poor responders to IVF. BioMed Research International. 2015;2015:970163.Google Scholar

Yang, R, Li, H, Li, R, Liu, P, Qiao, J. A comparison among different methods of letrozole combined with gonadotropin in an antagonist protocol and high-dose gonadotropin ovarian stimulation antagonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2016;294: 1091–97.Google Scholar

Surrey, ES. Management of the poor responder: the role of GnRH agonists and antagonists. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2007;24: 613–19.Google Scholar

Pandian, Z, McTavish, AR, Aucott, L, Hamilton, MP, Bhattacharya, S. Interventions for ‘poor responders’ to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online). 2010(1):CD004379.Google Scholar

Lefebvre, J, Antaki, R, Kadoch, I-J et al. 450 IU versus 600 IU gonadotropin for controlled ovarian stimulation in poor responders: a randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility.104: 1419–25.Google Scholar

Humaidan, P, Chin, W, Rogoff, D et al. Efficacy and safety of follitropin alfa/lutropin alfa in ART: a randomized controlled trial in poor ovarian responders. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England). 2017;32: 544–55.Google Scholar

Mak, SM, Wong, WY, Chung, HS et al. Effect of mid-follicular phase recombinant LH versus urinary HCG supplementation in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF – a prospective double-blinded randomized study. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2017;34: 258–66.Google Scholar

Selman, H, Rinaldi, L. Effectiveness of corifollitropin alfa used for ovarian stimulation of poor responder patients. International Journal of Women’s Health. 2016;8: 609–15.Google Scholar

Li, XL, Wang, L, Lv, F et al. The influence of different growth hormone addition protocols to poor ovarian responders on clinical outcomes in controlled ovary stimulation cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2017;96:e6443.Google Scholar

Qin, JC, Fan, L, Qin, AP. The effect of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) supplementation on women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) in IVF cycle: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction. 2017;46:1–7.Google Scholar

Bosdou, JK, Venetis, CA, Dafopoulos, K et al. Transdermal testosterone pretreatment in poor responders undergoing ICSI: a randomized clinical trial. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England). 2016;31: 977–85.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. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2016;204:36–43.Google Scholar

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. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology. 2016;203:30–34.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. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England). 2017;32: 112–18.Google Scholar