Trounson, AO, Leeton, JF, Wood, C, Webb, J, Kovacs, G. The investigation of idiopathic infertility by in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1980 November;34(5): 431–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jones, HW, Jones, GS, Andrews, MC et al. The program for in vitro fertilization at Norfolk. Fertil Steril. 1982 July;38(1):14–21.sGoogle Scholar

Foulot, H, Ranoux, C, Dubuisson, JB et al. In vitro fertilization without ovarian stimulation: a simplified protocol applied in 80 cycles. Fertil Steril. 1989 October;52(4): 617–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Paulson, RJ, Sauer, MV, Francis, MM, Macaso, TM, Lobo, RA. In vitro fertilization in unstimulated cycles: the University of Southern California experience. Fertil Steril. 1992 February;57(2): 290–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pelinck, MJ, Hoek, A, Simons, AHM, Heineman, MJ. Efficacy of natural cycle IVF: a review of the literature. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(2): 129–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Meldrum, DR, Rivier, J, Garzo, G et al. Successful pregnancies with unstimulated cycle oocyte donation using an antagonist of gonadotropin-releasing hormone. Fertil Steril. 1994;61: 556–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Paulson, RJ, Sauer, MV, Lobo, RA. Addition of a gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and exogenous gonadotropins to unstimulated in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles: Physiologic observations and preliminary experience. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1994;11:28–32.Google Scholar

Filicori, M, Cognigni, GE, Gameberini, E et al. Efficacy of low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin alone to complete controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:394–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Martins, WP, Vieira, AD, Figueiredo, JB, Nastri, CO. FSH replaced by low-dose hCG in the late follicular phase versus continued FSH for assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:CD010042.Google Scholar

Paulson, RJ, Chung, K, Quaas, AM et al. Low dose HCG alone can complete follicle maturity: successful application to modified natural cycle IVF. Fertil Steril. 2016 May;105(5): 1228–31.Google Scholar

Teramoto, S, Osada, H, Sato, Y, Shozu, M. Nondominant small follicles are a promising source of mature oocytes in modified natural cycle in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2016 July;106(1): 113–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tang-Pedersen, M, Westergaard, LG, Erb, K, Mikkelsen, AL. Combination of IVF and IVM in naturally cycling women. Repro Biomed Online 2012 January;24(1):47–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Thornton, MH, Francisco, MM, Paulson, RJ. Immature oocyte retrieval: lessons from unstimulated IVF cycles. Fertil Steril. 1998 October;70(4): 647–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gordon, JD, DiMattina, M, Reh, A et al. Utilization and success rates of unstimulated in vitro fertilization in the United States: an analysis of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology database. Fertil Steril. 2013 August;100(2): 392–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shaulov, T, Velez, MP, Buzaglo, K, Phillips, SJ, Kadoch, IJ. Outcomes of 1503 cycles of modified natural cycle in vitro fertilization: a single-institution experience. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32: 1043–8.Google Scholar

Morgia, F, Sbracia, M, Schimberni, M et al. A controlled trial of natural cycle versus microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog flare cycles in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004 June;81(6): 1542–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kim, CH, Kim, SR, Cheon, YP et al. Minimal stimulation using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone versus GnRH antagonist multiple-dose protocol in low responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2009 December;92(6): 2082–4.Google Scholar

Shimberni, M, Morgia, F, Colabianchi, J et al. Natural-cycle in vitro fertilization in poor responder patients: a survey of 500 consecutive cycles. Fertil Steril. 2009 October;92(4):1297–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mak, W, Kondapalli, LA, Celia, G et al. Natural cycle IVF reduces the risk of low birthweight infants compared with conventional stimulated IVF. Hum Reprod 2016;31(4):789–94.Google Scholar

Nargund, G, Fauser, BC, Macklon, NS et al. Rotterdam ISMAAR consensus group on terminology for ovarian stimulation for IVF. Human Reprod. 2007;22: 2801–4.Google Scholar

Heijnen, EM, Eijkemans, MJ, De Klerk, C et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilization: a randomized non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2007 March;369(9563): 743–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Youssef, MA, van Wely, M, Al-Inany, H et al. van der Veen F. A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF: a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod. 2017 January;32(1): 112–18.Google ScholarPubMed

Drakopoulos, P, Blockeel, C, Stoop, D et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Human Reprod. 31(2): 370–6.Google Scholar

Paulson, RJ, Sauer, MV, Lobo RA: Embryo implantation after human in vitro fertilization: Importance of endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 1990;53:870.Google Scholar

Sunkara, SK, Rittenberg, V, Raine-Fenning, N et al. Association between the number of eggs an live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400,135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7): 1768–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Steward, RG, Lan, L, Shah, AA et al. Oocyte number is a predictor for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and live birth: an analysis of 256,381 in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2014 April;101(4): 967–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baker, VL, Brown, MB, Luke, B, Smith, GW, Ireland, JJ. Gonadotropin dose is negatively correlated with live birth rate: analysis of more than 650,000 assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril. 2015 November;104(5): 1145–52.Google Scholar

Baart, EB, Martini, E, Eijkemans, MJ et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized control trial. Hum Reprod. 2007 April;22(4): 980–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labarta, E, Bosch, E, Alamá, P et al. Moderate ovarian stimulation does not increase the incidence of human embryo chromosomal abnormalities in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 October;97(10):E1987–94.Google Scholar

Knobil, E. The neuroendocrine control of the menstrual cycle. Recent Prog Horm Res. 1980;30:1–36.Google Scholar

Stanger, YD, Yovich, JL Reduced in vitro fertilization of human oocytes from patients with raised basal luteinizing hormone levels during the follicular phase. B J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;92:385–93.Google Scholar

Frattarelli, JL, Hillensjö, T, Broekmans, FJ et al. Clinical impact of LH rises prior to and during ganirelix treatment started on day 5 or on day 6 of ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013;11:90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hughes, EG, Fedorkow, DM, Daya, S et al. The routine use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists prior to in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril. 1992;58:888–96.Google Scholar

Schally, AV, Nair, RMG, Redding, TW et al. Isolation of the luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone-releasing hormone from porcine hypothalami. J Biol Chem. 1971;246:7230–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Feldberg, D, Ashkenazi, J, Dicker, D et al. Ovarian cysts formation: a complication of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy. Fertil Steril. 1989;51:42–5.Google Scholar

Biljan, MM, Lapensée, L, Mahutte, N et al. Effects of ovarian cysts detected on the 7th day of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog administration on the outcome of IVF treatment. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:941–5.Google Scholar

Reissmann, T, Felberbaum, R, Diedrich, K et al. Development and applications of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone antagonists in the treatment of infertility: an overview. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1974–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duijkers, IJM, Klipping, C, Willemsen, WNP et al. Single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist Cetrorelix in healthy female volunteers. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2392–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Oberye, JJ, Mannaerts, BM, Kleijn, HJ, Timmer, CJ Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of ganirelix (Antagon/Orgalutran). Part I. Absolute bioavailability of 0.25 mg of ganirelix after a single subcutaneous injection in healthy female volunteers. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:1001–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Oberye, JJ, Mannaerts, BM, Huisman, JA, Timmer, CJ Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of ganirelix (Antagon/Orgalutran). Part II. Dose-proportionality and gonadotropin suppression after multiple doses of ganirelix in healthy female volunteers. Fertil Steril 1999;72:1006–12.Google Scholar

Griesinger, G, Diedrich, K, Devroey, P, Kolibianakis, EM GnRH agonist for triggering final oocyte maturation in the GnRH antagonist ovarian hyperstimulation protocol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12:159–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sommer, L, Zanger, K, Dyong, T et al. Seven-day administration of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist Cetrorelix in normal cycling women. Eur J Endocrinol. 1994;131:280–5.Google Scholar

Duijkers, IJM, Klipping, C, Willemsen, WNP et al. Single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist Cetrorelix in healthy female volunteers. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2392–8.Google Scholar

Erb, K, Klipping, C, Duijkers, I et al. Pharmacodynamic effects and plasma pharmacokinetics of single doses of cetrorelix acetate in healthy premenopausal women. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:316–23.Google Scholar

Griesinger, G, Felberbaum, RE, Schultze-Mosgau, A, Diedrich, K. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive techniques: are there clinical differences between agents? Drugs. 2004;64(6):563–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nagaraja, NV, Pechstein, B, Erb, K et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling of cetrorelix, an LH-RH antagonist, after subcutaneous administration in healthy premenopausal women. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2000;68: 617–25.Google Scholar

Frattarelli, JL, Hillensjö, T, Broekmans, FJ et al. Clinical impact of LH rises prior to and during ganirelix treatment started on day 5 or on day 6 of ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013 September 12;11:90.Google Scholar

Griesinger, G, Dawson, A, Schultze-Mosgau, A, Finas, D, Diedrich K and Felberbaum R. Assessment of luteinizing hormone levels in the gonadotropin-releasing hormone-antagonist protocol. Fertility Sterility 2006 March;85(3):791–3.Google Scholar

Griesinger, G, Shapiro, DB, Kolibianakis, EM, Witjes, H, Mannaerts, BM No association between endogenous LH and pregnancy in a GnRH antagonist protocol: part II, recombinant FSH. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 October;23(4):457–65.Google Scholar

Kolibianakis, EM, Kalogeropoulou, L, Griesinger, G et al. Among patients treated with FSH and GnRH analogues for in vitro fertilization, is the addition of recombinant LH associated with the probability of live birth? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2007 September–October;13(5):445–52.Google Scholar

Xiong, Y, Bu, Z, Dai, W et al. Recombinant luteinizing hormone supplementation in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection with gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist protocol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014 November 24;12:109.Google Scholar

Griesinger, Georg, Finas, D, Alisch, A et al. Diedrich K and Felberbaum R. FSH time-concentration profiles before and after the administration of 0.25 mg cetrorelix in the GnRH-antagonist multiple dose protocol for ovarian hyperstimulation. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2004;21:279–82.Google Scholar

Al-Inany, H, Aboulghar, MA, Mansour, RT, Serour, GI Optimizing GnRH antagonist administration: meta-analysis of fixed versus flexible protocol. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:567–70.Google Scholar

Al-Inany, H, Aboulghar, M. GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:874–85.Google Scholar

Kolibianakis, EM, Griesinger, G. GnRH antagonists in ART In:Human Assisted Reproductive Technology: Future Trends in Laboratory and Clinical Practice. Edited by Gardner, David K, Rizk, Botros R. M. B. and Falcone, Tommaso. Cambridge University Press 2011, ISBN 978–1-107–00112-1.Google Scholar

Kolibianakis, EM, Collins, J, Tarlatzis, B et al. Among patients treated for IVF with gonadotrophins and GnRH-analogues, is the probability of live birth dependent on the type of analogue used? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update 2006 November–December;12:6517–1.Google Scholar

Al-Inany, HG, Youssef, MA, Aboulghar, M et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 May 11;(5):CD001750.Google Scholar

Toftager, M, Bogstad, J, Bryndorf, T et al. Risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol: RCT including 1050 first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:1253–64.Google Scholar

Toftager, M, Bogstad, J, Løssl, K et al. Cumulative live birth rates after one ART cycle including all subsequent frozen-thaw cycles in 1050 women: secondary outcome of an RCT comparing GnRH-antagonist and GnRH-agonist protocols. Hum Reprod. 2017;32: 5566–7.Google Scholar

Tarlatzis, BC, Griesinger, G, Leader, A et al. Comparative incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome following ovarian stimulation with corifollitropin alfa or recombinant FSH. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;24:4101–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Griesinger, G, Verweij, PJM, Gates, D, Devroey, P, Gordon, K, Stegmann, BJ et al. Prediction of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in patients treated with corifollitropin alfa or rFSH in a GnRH antagonist protocol. PLoS ONE 2016;11(3):e0149615. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149615.Google Scholar

Griesinger, G., von Otte, S., Schroer, A. et al. Elective cryopreservation of all pronuclear oocytes after GnRH-agonist triggering of final oocyte maturation in OHSS risk patients: a prospective, observational proof-of-concept study. Human Reproduction 2007;22:1348–52 Russian Excerpted Edition: Human Reproduction Update 2007;2:55–9.Google Scholar

Griesinger, G, Berndt, H, Schultz, L, Depenbusch, M, Schultze-Mosgau, A. Cumulative live birth rates after GnRH-agonist triggering of final oocyte maturation in patients at risk of OHSS: A prospective, clinical cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;149:190–4.Google Scholar

Al-Inany, HG, Youssef, MA, Ayeleke, RO et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 April 29;4:CD001750.Google Scholar

Griesinger, G, Diedrich, K, Tarlatzis, B, Kolibianakis, EM GnRH-antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF in patients with [1] poor response to gonadotrophins, [2] polycystic ovary syndrome, and [3] risk of ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2006;13:6283–8.Google Scholar

Pu, D, Wu, J, Liu, J. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2742–9.Google Scholar

Fauser, BC, Mannaerts, BM, Devroey, P et al. Advances in recombinant DNA technology: corifollitropin alfa, a hybrid molecule with sustained follicle-stimulating activity and reduced injection frequency. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15:3092–1.Google Scholar

Griesinger, G, Boostanfar, R, Gordon, K et al. Corifollitropin alfa versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 April 20. p ii: S1472–6483(16)30068–2. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nyboe Andersen, A, Nelson, SM, Fauser, BC et al. ESTHER-1 study group. Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Fertil Steril.2017;107: 3879–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, RG. The history of assisted human conception with especial reference to endocrinology. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 1996;104:183–204.Google Scholar

Steptoe, PC, Edwards, RG. Laparoscopic recovery of preovulatory human oocytes after priming of ovaries with gonadotrophins. Lancet. 1970; 1(7649):683–9.Google ScholarPubMed

Steptoe, PC, Edwards, RG. Reimplantation of a human embryo with subsequent tubal pregnancy. Lancet. 1976;1(7965):880–2.Google Scholar

Edwards, RG, Steptoe, PC, Purdy, JM. Establishing full-term human pregnancies using cleaving embryos grown in vitro. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1980;87:737–56.Google Scholar

Jones, HW Jr, Jones, GS, Andrews, MC et al. The program for in vitro fertilization at Norfolk. Fertil Steril. 1982 Jul;38(1):14–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Trounson, AO, Leeton, JF, Wood, C, Webb, J, Wood, J. Pregnancies in humans by fertilization in vitro and embryo transfer in the controlled ovulatory cycle. Science 1981;212:681–2.Google Scholar

Fishel, SB, Edwards, RG, Purdy, JM et al. Implantation, abortion, and birth after in vitro fertilization using the natural menstrual cycle or follicular stimulation with clomiphene citrate and human menopausal gonadotropin. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1985;2:123–31.Google Scholar

Lunenfeld, B. Historical perspectives in gonadotrophin therapy. Human Reproduction Update 2004;10:453–67.Google Scholar

Howles, CM. Recombinant gonadotrophins in reproductive medicine: the gold standard of today. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:11–3.Google Scholar

Lispi, M, Bassett, R, Crisci, C et al. Comparative assessment of the consistency and quality of a highly purified FSH extracted from human urine (urofollitropin) and a recombinant human FSH (follitropin alpha). Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:179–93.Google Scholar

Boostanfar, R, Mannaerts, B, Pang, S et al. A comparison of live birth rates and cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates between Europe and North America after ovarian stimulation with corifollitropin alfa or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1351–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wide, L, Bakos, O. More basic forms of both human follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone in serum at midcycle compared with the follicular or luteal phase. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1993;76:885–9.Google Scholar

Wide, L, Naessén, T, Sundström-Poromaa, I, Eriksson, K. Sulfonation and sialylation of gonadotropins in women during the menstrual cycle, after menopause, and with polycystic ovarian syndrome and in men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92:4410–7.Google Scholar

Wide, L, Naessén, T, Eriksson, K. Effects of 17beta-oestradiol and norethisterone acetate on sulfonation and sialylation of gonadotrophins in post-menopausal women. Ups J Med Sci. 2010;115:97–106.Google Scholar

Horsman, G, Talbot, JA, McLoughlin, JD, Lambert, A, Robertson, WR. A biological, immunological and physico-chemical comparison of the current clinical batches of the recombinant FSH preparations Gonal-F and Puregon. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1898–902.Google Scholar

Howles, CM. Genetic engineering of human FSH (Gonal-F). Hum Reprod Update. 1996;2:172–91.Google Scholar

Loumaye, E, Martineau, I, Piazzi, A et al. Clinical assessment of human gonadotrophins produced by recombinant DNA technology. Hum Reprod. 1996;11 Suppl 1:95–107.Google Scholar

Driebergen, R, Baer, G. Quantification of follicle stimulating hormone (follitropin alfa): is in vivo bioassay still relevant in the recombinant age? Curr Med Res Opin. 2003;19:41–6.Google Scholar

Fauser, BC, Mannaerts, BM, Devroey, P et al. Advances in recombinant DNA technology: corifollitropin alfa, a hybrid molecule with sustained follicle-stimulating activity and reduced injection frequency. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15:309–21.Google Scholar

Scholtes, MC, Schnittert, B, van Hoogstraten, D et al. A comparison of 3-day and daily follicle-stimulating hormone injections on stimulation days 1–6 in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril. 2004; 81:996–1001.Google Scholar

Orvieto, R, Seifer, DB. Biosimilar FSH preparations: are they identical twins or just siblings? Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016; 14:32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schiestl, M. A biosimilar industry view on the implementation of the WHO guidelines on evaluating similar biotherapeutic products. Biologicals. 2011;39:297–9.Google Scholar

Rettenbacher, M, Andersen, AN, Garcia-Velasco, JA et al. A multi-centre phase 3 study comparing efficacy and safety of Bemfola(®) versus Gonal-f(®) in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30:504–13.Google Scholar

Olsson, H, Sandstrom, R, Grundemar, L. Different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) derived from a human cell line compared with rFSH from a non-human cell line. J Clin Pharmacol 2014;54:1299–1307.Google Scholar

Arce, JC, Andersen, AN, Fernández-Sánchez, M et al. Ovarian response to recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone: a randomized, antimüllerian hormone-stratified, dose-response trial in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1633–40.Google Scholar

Nyboe Andersen, A, Nelson, SM, Fauser, BC et al. ESTHER-1 study group. Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:387–96.Google Scholar

Abd-Elaziz, K, Duijkers, I, Stöckl, L et al. A new fully human recombinant FSH (follitropin epsilon): two phase I randomized placebo and comparator-controlled pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic trials. Hum Reprod. 2017;7:1–9.Google Scholar

Baird, DT. A model for follicular selection and ovulation: lessons from superovulation. J Steroid Biochem. 1987;27:15–23.Google Scholar

Sunkara, SK, Rittenberg, V, Raine-Fenning, N et al. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1768–74.Google Scholar

Bosch, E, Labarta, E, Crespo, J et al. Circulating progesterone levels and ongoing pregnancy rates in controlled ovarian stimulation cycles for in vitro fertilization: analysis of over 4000 cycles. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2092–100.Google Scholar

Porter, RN, Smith, W, Craft, IL, Abdulwahid, NA, Jacobs, HS. Induction of ovulation for in-vitro fertilisation using buserelin and gonadotropins. Lancet. 1984;2(8414):1284–5.Google Scholar

Fleming, R, Adam, AH, Barlow, DH et al. A new systematic treatment for infertile women with abnormal hormone profiles. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1982;89:80–3.Google Scholar

Howles, CM, Macnamee, MC, Edwards, RG, Goswamy, R, Steptoe, PC. Effect of high tonic levels of luteinising hormone on outcome of in-vitro fertilisation. Lancet. 1986;2(8505):521–2.Google Scholar

Kol, S, Muchtar, M. Recombinant gonadotrophin-based, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome-free stimulation of the high responder: suggested protocol for further research. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:575–7.Google Scholar

Humaidan, P, Bredkjaer, HE, Bungum, L, Bungum, M, Grøndahl, ML, Westergaard, L,Andersen, CY. GnRH agonist (buserelin) or hCG for ovulation induction in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1213–20.Google Scholar

Devroey, P, Polyzos, NP, Blockeel, C. An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2593–7.Google Scholar

Broekmans, FJ, de Ziegler, D, Howles, CM et al. The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1044–51.Google Scholar

Nelson, SM, Yates, RW, Lyall, H et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone-based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:867–75.Google Scholar

Cobo, A, Garrido, N, Pellicer, A, Remohí, J. Six years’ experience in ovum donation using vitrified oocytes: report of cumulative outcomes, impact of storage time, and development of a predictive model for oocyte survival rate. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1426–34.Google Scholar

Fauser, BC, Diedrich, K, Devroey, P. Predictors of ovarian response: progress towards individualized treatment in ovulation induction and ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod Update 2008;14:1–14.Google Scholar

Aboulghar, MA, Mansour, RT. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: classifications and critical analysis of preventive measures. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:275–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Humaidan, P, Engmann, L, Benadiva, C. Luteal phase supplementation after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger in fresh embryo transfer: the American versus European approaches. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:879–85.Google Scholar

Dosouto, C, Haahr, T, Humaidan, P. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) trigger – State of the art. Reprod Biol. 2017;17:1–8.Google Scholar

Baird, DT, Factors regulating the growth of the preovulatory follicle in the sheep and human, J Reprod Fertil. 1983, 69, 343–52.Google Scholar

Wallace, WH, Kelsey, TW, Human ovarian reserve from conception to the menopause, PLoS One, 2010, 8772.Google Scholar

Fauser, BC, Van Heusden, AM, Manipulation of human ovarian function: physiological concepts and clinical consequences, Endocr Rev. 1997, 18, 71–106.Google Scholar

Nelson, SM, Yates, RW, 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, 2414–21.Google Scholar

de Ziegler, D, Gayet, V, Aubriot, FX et al., Use of oral contraceptives in women with endometriosis before assisted reproduction treatment improves outcomes, Fertil Steril. 2010, 94, 2796–9.Google Scholar

Porchet, HC, Le Cotonnec, JY, Loumaye, E, Clinical pharmacology of recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). III. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling after repeated subcutaneous administration, Fertil Steril. 1994, 61, 687–95.Google Scholar

Olivennes, F, Trew, G, Borini, A et al., Randomized, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority study of the CONSORT algorithm for individualized dosing of follitropin alfa, Reprod Biomed Online. 2015, 30, 248–57.Google Scholar

Jayaprakasan, K, Hopkisson, J, Campbell, B et al., A randomised controlled trial of 300 versus 225 IU recombinant FSH for ovarian stimulation in predicted normal responders by antral follicle count, BJOG. 2010, 117, 853–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schimberni, M, Ciardo, F, Schimberni, M et al., Short gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus flexible antagonist versus clomiphene citrate regimens in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial, Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016, 20, 4354–61.Google Scholar

Wikland, M, Bergh, C, Borg, K et al., A prospective, randomized comparison of two starting doses of recombinant FSH in combination with cetrorelix in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI, Hum Reprod. 2001, 16, 1676–81.Google Scholar

La Marca, A, Grisendi, V, Giulini, S et al., Live birth rates in the different combinations of the Bologna criteria poor ovarian responders: a validation study, J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015, 32, 931–7.Google Scholar

Nyboe Andersen, A, Nelson, SM, Fauser, BC et al., ESTHER-1 study group., Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial, Fertil Steril, 2016, [Epub ahead of print], PMID:27912901.Google Scholar

Olsson, H, Sandström, R, Grundemar, L, Different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) derived from a human cell line compared with rFSH from a non-human cell line, J Clin Pharmacol. 2014, 54, 1299–307.Google Scholar

Sunkara, SK, 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, 147–53.Google Scholar

Fleming, R, Yates, R, Coutts, JRT, Presented to the Endocrine Society annual meeting, 1994.Google Scholar

Fleming, R, Ambrose, P, Mitchell, P, Adam, C, Gaudoin, M, Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar

Blockeel, C, Sterrenburg, MD, Broekmans, FJ et al., Follicular phase endocrine characteristics during ovarian stimulation and GnRH antagonist cotreatment for IVF: RCT comparing recFSH initiated on cycle day 2 or 5, J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011, 96, 1122–8.Google Scholar

Cédrin-Durnerin, I, Bständig, B, Parneix, I et al., Effects of oral contraceptive, synthetic progestogen or natural estrogen pre-treatments on the hormonal profile and the antral follicle cohort before GnRH antagonist protocol, Hum Reprod. 2007, 22, 109–16.Google Scholar

Griesinger, G, Kolibianakis, EM, Venetis, C, Diedrich, K, Tarlatzis, B, Oral contraceptive pretreatment significantly reduces ongoing pregnancy likelihood in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: an updated meta-analysis, Fertil Steril. 2010, 94, 2382–4.Google Scholar

Sobotka, V, Streda, R, Mardesic, T, Tosner, J, Heracek, J, Steroids pretreatment in assisted reproduction cycles, J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2014, 139, 114–21.Google Scholar

Griesinger, G, Venetis, CA, Tarlatzis, B, Kolibianakis, EM, To pill or not to pill in GnRH-antagonist cycles: the answer is in the data already!, Reprod Biomed Online. 2015, 31, 42588.Google Scholar

Yovich, JL. A clinician’s personal view of assisted reproductive technology over 35 years. Reprod Biol 2011; 11: 31–42.Google Scholar

Malhotra, J. (Ed). Pathfinders; Extraordinary doctors, extraordinary achievements; An Aspire initiative. Pugmarks Mediaa Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India 2016; pp84.Google Scholar

Anand Kumar, TC. Architect of India’s first test tube baby: Dr. Subhas Mukherjee (16 Jan 1931 to 19 Jul 1981). Current Science 1997; 72: 526–531.Google Scholar

Wikland, MD, Nilsson, L, Hanson, R, Hamberger, L, Jenson, PO. Collection of human oocytes by the use of sonography. Fertil Steril 1983; 39: 603–608.Google Scholar

Seppälä, M, Edwards, RG (eds). In vitro fertilization and Embryo Transfer. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1985; 442: p 619. New York.Google Scholar

Brown, S. ESHRE –the first 21 years. ESHRE publication 2005: p 273.Google Scholar

Schally, AV, Kastin, AJ, Arimura, A. Hypothalamic follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH)-regulating hormone: structure, physiology, and clinical studies. Fertil Steril 1971; 22: 703–721.Google Scholar

Burgus, R, Butcher, M, Ling, N et al. Molecular structure of the hypothalamic factor (LRF) of ovine origin monitoring the secretion of pituitary gonadotropic hormone of luteinization hormone (LH). C R Acad Sci Hebd Seances Acad Sci D 1971; 273: 1611–1613. [Articlein French]Google Scholar

Tomaževič, T, Ban-Frankež, H, Virant-Klun, I et al. Septate, subseptate and arcuate uterus decrease pregnancy and live birth rates in IVF/ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21; 700–705.Google Scholar

Van Keppel, M, Yovich, JL. Nurturing the best interests of the future child. Annual Meeting of Fert Soc Aust, Sydney, September 2013 (For submission).Google Scholar

Yovich, JL, Alsbjerg, B, Hinchliffe, P, Keane, KN. PIVET rFSH dosing algorithms for individualised controlled ovarian stimulation enables optimised pregnancy productivity rates and avoidance of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Drug Design, Development & Therapy 2016;10; 2561–2573.Google Scholar

Nelson, SM. Biomarkers of ovarian response: current and future applications. Fertil Steril 2013;99:963–969.Google Scholar

Fisch, JD, Keskintepe, L, Sher, G. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist conversion with estrogen priming in low responders with prior in vitro fertilization failure. Fertil Steril 2008;89:342–347.Google Scholar

Yovich, J, Grudzinskas, G. The management of infertility; a manual of gamete handling procedures. Heinemann Medical Books, Oxford UK 1990; see p. 21–37.Google Scholar

Craft, I, Shelton, K, Yovich, JL, Smith, D. Ovum retention in the human. Fertil Steril 1980;34:537–541.Google Scholar

Bodri, D, Kawachiya, S, Brucker, MD et al. Cumulative success rates following mild IVF in unselected infertile patients: a 3-year, single-centre cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;28:572–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pouwer, AW, Farquar, C, Kremer, JA. Long-acting FSH versus daily FSH for women undergoing assisted reproduction. 2012 Cochrane Database Syst Rev Jun 13;(6):CD009577. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009577.pub2Google Scholar

Yovich, JL, Keane, KN, Borude, G, Dhaliwal, SS, Hinchliffe, PM Finding a place for Corifollitropin within the PIVET FSH Dosing Algorithms. 2017 Reprod Biomed Online; in pressGoogle Scholar

Kuang, Y, Chen, Q, Hong, Q et al. Double stimulations during the follicular and luteal phases of poor responders in IVF/ICSI programmes (Shanghai protocol). Reprod Biomed Online 2014; 6: 684–691.Google Scholar

Yovich, JL, Conceicao, JL, Stanger, JD, Hinchliffe, PM, Keane, KN Mid-luteal serum progesterone concentrations govern implantation rates for frozen embryo transfers conducted under hormone replacement. Reprod BioMed Online 2015; 31, 180–191.Google Scholar

Bühler, KF, Fischer, R. Recombinant human LH supplementation versus supplementation with urinary hCG-based LH activity during controlled ovarian stimulation in the long GnRH-agonist protocol: a matched case-control study. Gynecol Endocrinol 2012; 28: 345–350.Google Scholar

Lower, A, Shenton, P, O’Shea, F, Yovich, JL. The value of serum levels of oestradiol, progesterone and beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin in the prediction of early pregnancy losses. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 711–717.Google Scholar

Yovich, JL, Stanger, JD, Yovich, JM, Tuvik, AI. Hormonal profiles in the follicular phase, luteal phase and first trimester of pregnancies arising from in-vitro fertilization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 374–384.Google Scholar

Yovich, JL, McColm, SC, Turner, SR, Matson, PL. Heterotopic pregnancy from in-vitro fertilisation. J Vitro Fert Embryo Transfer 1985; 2: 146–150.Google Scholar

Barnhart, K, van Mello, NM, Bourne, T et al. Pregnancy of unknown location: A consensus statement of nomenclature, definitions and outcome. Fertil Steril 2010;95:857–866.Google Scholar

The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertility and Sterility 2008:9(3); S188–S193.Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) The Management of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome Green-top Guideline No. 5 September 2006.Google Scholar

Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, Directorate of Strategy and Clinical Programmes and Health Service Executive. Clinical Practice Guideline, Ovarian Hyperstimulation Diagnosis and Management 2012.Google Scholar

Joint Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada-Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee. Shmorgun, D, Claman, P, Gysler, M et al. The diagnosis and management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: No. 268, November 2011. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;116:268–273.Google Scholar

Boothroyd, C, Karia, S, Andreadis, N et al. and The Australasian CREI Consensus Expert Panel on Trial evidence (ACCEPT) group, Consensus statement on prevention and detection of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2015; 5:523–534. doi:10.1111/ajo.12406Google Scholar

Kwik, M, Karia, S, Boothroyd, C), RANZCOG CREI consensus statement on treatment of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2015;55:413–419. doi:10.1111/ajo.12389Google Scholar

Mathur, RS, Tan, BK British fertility society policy and practice committee: Prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Human Fertility 2014:17(4);257–268.Google Scholar

Lee, TS, Liu, CH, Huang, CC et al. Serum AMH and estradiol levels as predictors of OHSS in ART cycles. Hum Reprod 2008:23(1);160–167.Google Scholar

Luke, B, Brown, MB, Morbeck, DE et al. Factors associated with OHSS and its effect on ART treatment and outcome. Fertil Steril 2010:94(4);1399–1404.Google Scholar

Al-Inany, HG, Youssef, MA, Aboulghar, M et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 5, Art. No.:CD001750. Doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001750.pub3.Google Scholar

Tang, T, Glanville, J, Orsi, N et al. The use of metformin for women with PCOS undergoing IVF treatment. Human Reprod 2006:21(26);1416–1425.Google Scholar

Mathur, R, Kailasam, C, Jenkins, J. Review of the evidence base strategies to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Fertil 2007;10:75–85.Google Scholar

Youssef, MA1,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. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008046.pub4.Google Scholar

El-Khayat, W, Elsadek, M. Calcium infusion for the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2015:103(1);101–105.Google Scholar

Banker, M, Garcia-Velasco, JA Revisting ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome: towards OHSS free clinic. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2015 January–March;8(1):13–17.Google Scholar

Steptoe, PC, Edwards RG. Birth after re-implantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978; 2: 366.Google Scholar

Steptoe, PC, Webster, J. Laparoscopy for oocyte recovery. Ann NY Acad Sci 1985;442: 178–81.Google Scholar

Lenz, S, Lauritsen, JK. Ultrasonically guided percutaneous aspiration of human follicles under local anesthesia: a new method for collecting oocytes for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1982;38: 673–7.Google Scholar

Royal Society of Medicine Symposium, 1985. Mrs Vinay Sharma – personal communication.Google Scholar

Parsons, J, Booker, M, Goswamy, R et al. Campbell S: Oocyte retrieval for in-vitro fertilisation by ultrasonically guided needle aspiration via the urethra. Lancet 1:1076, 1985.Google Scholar

Dellenbach, P, Nisand, I, Moreau, L et al. Transvaginal sonographically controlled follicle puncture for oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril. 1985; 44: 656–662.Google Scholar

Feichtinger, W. and Kemeter, P. Transvaginal sector scan sonography for needle guided transvaginal follicle aspiration and other applications in gynecologic routine and research. Fertil. Steril. 1986; 45, 722–725.Google Scholar

Feichtinger, W. Follicle aspiration with interactive three-dimensional digital imaging (Voluson): a step toward real-time puncturing under three-dimensional ultrasound control. Fertil Steril. 1998; 70 (2): 374–377.Google Scholar

Rose, B I. Follicle flushing for oocyte retrieval: Targeted analysis for patients with few follicles. IVF Lite 2014; 1: 75–80.Google Scholar

Lewin, A, Laufer, N, Rabinowitz, R, Schenker, J. Ultrasound guided oocyte recovery for in vitro fertilization: an improved method. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transfer. 1986;3: 370–3.Google Scholar

Aziz, N, Biljan, MM, Taylor, CT, Manasse, PR, Kingsland, CR. Effect of aspirating needle caliber on outcome of in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1993;8: 1098–100.Google Scholar

Wikipedia. Needle gauge comparison chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needle_gauge_comparison_chart, accessed April 25, 2014.Google Scholar

Wikland, M, Blad, S, Bungum, L et al. A randomized controlled study comparing pain experience between a newly designed needle with a thin tip and a standard needle for oocyte aspiration. Hum Reprod. 2011;26: 1377–83.Google Scholar

Horne, R, Bishop, CJ, Reeves, G, Wood, C, Kovacs, GT. Aspiration of oocytes for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod Update. 1996;2:77–85.Google Scholar

Lowe, B, Osborn, JC, Fothergill, DJ, Lieberman, BA. Factors associated with accidental fractures of the zona pellucida and multipronuclear human oocytes following in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1988;3:901–4.Google Scholar

Sunkara, SK, Rittenberg, V, Raine-Fenning, N et al. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: An analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod 2011;26: 1768–74.Google Scholar

Elhussein, E, Balen, AH, Tan, SL. A prospective-study comparing the outcome of oocytes retrieved in the aspirate with those retrieved in the flush during transvaginal ultrasound directed oocyte recovery for in vitro fertilization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:841–844.Google Scholar

Waterstone, JJ, Parsons, JH. A prospective-study to investigate the value of flushing follicles during transvaginal ultrasound-directed follicle aspiration. Fertil Steril 1992;57:221–223.Google Scholar

Bagtharia, S, Haloob, ARK. Is there a benefit from routine follicular flushing for oocyte retrieval? J Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2005; 25 (4): 374–376.Google Scholar

Kingsland, CR, Taylor, CT, Aziz, N, Bickerton, N. Is follicular flushing necessary for oocyte retrieval? A randomized trial. Human Reproduction 1991; 6 (3): 382–383.Google Scholar

Levens, ED, Whitcomb, BW, Payson, MD, Larsen, FW. Ovarian follicular flushing among low-responding patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1381–1384.Google Scholar

Mendez Lozano, DH, Brum Scheffer, J, Frydman, N et al. Optimal reproductive competence of oocytes retrieved through follicular flushing in minimal stimulation IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2008;16: 119–23.Google Scholar

Mok-Lin, E, Brauer, AA, Schattman, G, Zaninovic, N, Rosenwaks, Z, Spandorfer S Follicular flushing and in vitro fertilization outcomes in the poorest responders: a randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2013; 28 (11): 2990–2995.Google Scholar

Malhotra, N, Dolkar, D, Mahey, R, Singh, N. To flush or not to flush: a randomized controlled trial comparing follicular flushing and direct aspiration at oocyte retrieval in poor responders undergoing IVF. Fertil & Steril. 2017; 108 (3): 237–238.Google Scholar

Levy, G, Hill, MJ, Ramirez, CI et al. The use of follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction 2012; 27 (8): 2373–2379.Google Scholar

Wongtra-ngan, S, Vutyavanich, T, Brown, J. Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD004634Google Scholar

Sun, XF, Wang, WH, Keefe, DL. Overheating is detrimental to meiotic spindles within in vitro matured human oocytes. Zygote 2004; 12(1): 65–70.Google Scholar

Wang, WH, Meng, L, Hackett, R, Odenbourg, R, Keefe, DL. Limited recovery of meiotic spindles in living human oocytes after cooling-rewarming observed using polarized light microscopy. Human Reproduction 2001; 16 (11), 2374–2378.Google Scholar

Almeida, P., & Bolton, V. The effect of temperature fluctuations on the cytoskeletal organisation and chromosomal constitution of the human oocyte. Zygote, 1995; 3(4), 357–365.Google Scholar

Pickering, SJ, Braude, PR, Johnson, MH, Cant, A, Currie, J, Transient cooling to room temperature can cause irreversible disruption of the meiotic spindle in the human oocyte. Fertil and Steril. 1990; 54 (1): 102–108.Google Scholar

Redding, GP, Bronlund, JE, Hart, AL. The effects of IVF aspiration on the temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, and pH of follicular fluid. J Assist Reprod Genet 2006; 23: 37–40.Google Scholar

Hyslop, L, Prathalingam, N, Nowak, L, Fenwick, J, Harbottle, S et al. (2012) A Novel Isolator-Based System Promotes Viability of Human Embryos during Laboratory Processing. PLOS ONE 7(2): e 31010.Google Scholar

Kwan, I, Bhattacharya, S, Knox, F, McNeil, A. Pain relief for women undergoing oocyte retrieval for assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 1: CD004829.Google Scholar

Cerne, A, Bergh, C, Borg, K et al. Pre-ovarian block versus paracervical block for occyte retrieval. Human Reproduction 2006; 21 (11): 2916–2921.Google Scholar

Gejervall, AL, Stener-Victorin, E, Möller, A et al. Electro-acupuncture versus conventional analgesia: a comparison of pain levels during oocyte aspiration and patients’ experiences of well-being after surgery. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 728–35.Google Scholar

Royal College of Anaesthetists. Guidelines on the Provision of Anaesthetic Services (GPAS), Chapter 19, Guidance on the Provision of Sedation Services 2016.Google Scholar

Yasmin, E, Dresner, M, Balen, A. Sedation and anaesthesia for transvaginal oocyte collection: An evaluation of practice in the UK. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2942–5.Google Scholar

Ditkoff, EC, Plumb, J, Selick, A, Sauer, MV. Anesthesia practices in the United States common to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) centers. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1997; 14 (3): 145–147.Google Scholar

Sheahan, CG, Mathews, DM. Monitoring and delivery of sedation. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2014; 113 (2): 37–47.Google Scholar

Janssenswillen, C, Christiaens, F, Camu, F and Steirteghem, A (1997) The effect of propofol on parthenogenetic activation, in vitro fertilisation and early development of mouse oocytes. Fertil Steril 67,769–774.Google Scholar

Ben-Shlomo, I, Moskovich, R, Golan, J et al. The effect of propofol anaesthesia on oocyte fertilisation and early embryo quality. Human Reproduction 2000; 15 (10): 2197–2199.Google Scholar

Ng, EH, Tang, OS, Chui, DK, Ho, PC. A prospective, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of paracervical block in the pain relief during egg collection in IVF. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2783–2787.Google Scholar

Corson, SL, Batzer, FR, Gocial, B, Kelly, M, Gutmann, JN, Go, KJ, English, ME. Is paracervical block anesthesia for oocyte retrieval effective? Fertil Steril. 1994;62:133–136.Google Scholar

Tummon, I, Newton, C, Lee, C, Martin, J. Lidocaine vaginal gel versus lidocaine paracervical block for analgesia during oocyte retrieval. Human Reproduction 2004; 19 (5): 1116–1120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ng, EHY, Miao, B, Ho, PC. Anxiolytic premedication reduces preoperative anxiety and pain during oocyte retrieval. A randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2002; 17 (5); 1233–1238.Google Scholar

Bhattacharya, S, MacLennan, F, Hamilton, MPR, Templeton, A. How effective is patient-controlled analgesia? A randomised comparison of two protocols for pain relief during oocyte recovery. Human Reproduction. 1997; 12 (7): 1440–1442.Google Scholar

Lok, IH, Chan, MTV, Chan, DLW et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing patient-controlled sedation using propofol and alfentanil and physician-administered sedation using diazepam and pethidine during transvaginal ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval. Human Reproduction 2002; 17 (8): 2101–2106.Google Scholar

Kwan, I, Bhattacharya, S, Know, F, McNeil, A. Conscious sedation and analgesia for oocyte retrieval during IVF procedures: a Cochrane review. Human Reproduction 2006; 21 (7): 1672–1679.Google Scholar

Bennett, SJ, Waterstone, JJ, Cheng, WC, Parsons, J. Complications of transvaginal Ultrasound-Directed Follicle Aspiration: A review of 2670 Consecutive Procedures. J Assisted Reproduction & Genetics 1993; 10 (1): 72–77.Google Scholar

Tureck, RW, Garcia, CR, Blasco, L, Mastroianna, L Jr. Perioperative complications arising after transvaginal oocyte retrieval. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81: 590–3.Google Scholar

Sowerby, E, Parsons, J. Prevention of iatrogenic pelvic infection during in vitro fertilization – current practice in the UK. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2004;7: 135–40.Google Scholar

Van Oostrom, N, De Sutter, P, Meys, J, Verstraelen, H. Risks associated with Bacterial Vaginosis in infertility patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction 2013; 28 (7): 1809–1815.Google Scholar

Van Os, HC, Roozenburg, BJ, Janssen-Caspers, HA et al. Vaginal disinfection with povidin iodine and the outcome of in-vitro fertilisation. Human Reproduction 1992; 7 (3): 349–350.Google Scholar

Hannoun, A, Awwad, J, Zreik, T, Ghaziri, G, Abu-Musa, A. Effect of betadine vaginal preparation during oocyte aspiration in in-vitro fertilisation cycles on pregnancy outcome. Gynaecol Obstet Invest. 2008; 66 (4): 274–278.Google Scholar

Dessole, S, Rubattu, G, Ambrosini, G et al. Blood loss following non-complicated transvaginal oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2001;76: 205–6.Google Scholar

Liberty, G, Hyman, JH, Eldar-Geva, T et al. Ovarian hemorrhage after transvaginal ultrasonographically guided oocyte aspiration: a potentially catastrophic and not so rare complication among lean patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2010;93: 874–9.Google Scholar

Dicker, D, Ashkenazi, J, Feldberg, D et al. Severe abdominal complications after transvaginal ultrasonographically guided retrieval of oocytes for in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 1313–5.Google Scholar

Tureck, RW, García, CR, Blasco, L, Mastroianni, L, Jr. Perioperative complications arising after transvaginal oocyte retrieval. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81: 590–3.Google Scholar

Moini, A, Malekzadeh, F, Amirchaghmaghi, E et al. Risk factors associated with endometriosis among infertile Iranian women. Arch Med Sci 2013; 9: 506–14.Google Scholar

Jayaprakasan, K, Becker, C, Mittal, M on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Effect of Surgery for Endometriomas. Scientific Impact paper number 55. BJOG 2017; DOI: 10.1111/1471–0528.14834Google Scholar

Miller, PB, Price, T, Nichols, JE, Jr., Hill, L. Acute ureteral obstruction following transvaginal oocyte retrieval for IVF. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 137–8.Google Scholar

Almog, B, Rimon, E, Yovel, I et al. Vertebral osteomyelitis: a rare complication of transvaginal ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 1250–2.Google Scholar

Esposito, J, Qin, S Kovacs, G. How much inconvenience and discomfort does modern IVF treatment cause? Glob J Reprod Med 2017;1(2):MS.ID.555557Google Scholar

Gawande, A. The Checklist Manifesto. 2010 Profile Books London.Google Scholar