Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner

doi:10.1017/9781108937054.011

Chapter 9 - Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner

from Section 2 - Clinical Evaluation of the Infertile Male

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 July 2023

Sahar Wertheimer ,

Jessica L. Chan and

Margareta D. Pisarska

Edited by

Larry I. Lipshultz ,

Stuart S. Howards ,

Craig S. Niederberger and

Dolores J. Lamb

Show author details

Larry I. Lipshultz: Affiliation:
Baylor College of Medicine, Texas
Stuart S. Howards: Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Craig S. Niederberger: Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Dolores J. Lamb: Affiliation:
Weill Cornell Medical College, New York

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Infertility is common, affecting up to 15 percent of couples [1]. One-third of infertility is attributed to a female factor, whereas 20 percent of infertility is attributed to a male factor. In up to 20–40 percent of cases, there are both a female and a male factor contributing to infertility [1, 2]. The evaluation of infertility is warranted after 12 months of unprotected intercourse in couples when the female partner is aged 35 or younger. The natural decline in fertility begins to increase more rapidly after age 35. Thus, in women aged 35 years or older, evaluation should be initiated after 6 months of unprotected intercourse. In women with known risk factors for infertility, such as irregular menstrual cycles or endometriosis, a complete evaluation should be performed sooner. Since infertility may be the result of both female and male factors, couples already diagnosed with male factor infertility should also undergo a complete workup [1]. In this chapter, we will focus on the evaluation of the female partner.

Type: Chapter
Information: Infertility in the Male , pp. 146 - 164

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108937054.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Pfeifer, S, Butts, S, Dumesic, D, et al. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile male: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015;103:e18–25.Google Scholar

American Society for Reproductive Medicine. FAQs about infertility. 2017. Available from: www.reproductivefacts.org/faqs/frequently-asked-questions-about-infertility/.Google Scholar

Gee, RE, Newman, J. Exposure to toxic environmental agents. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:931–5.Google Scholar

Penzias, A, Bendikson, K, Butts, S, et al. Smoking and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2018;110:611–18.Google Scholar

American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Prepregnancy counseling. Committee opinion no. 762. Fertil Steril 2019;111:32–42.Google Scholar

Setton, R, Tierney, C, Tsai, T. The accuracy of web sites and cellular phone applications in predicting the fertile window. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:58–63.Google Scholar

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Optimizing natural fertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2017;107:52–8.Google Scholar

Miller, PB, Soules, MR. The usefulness of a urinary LH kit for ovulation prediction during menstrual cycles of normal women. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:13–17.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pearlstone, AC, Surrey, ES. The temporal relation between the urine LH surge and sonographic evidence of ovulation: determinants and clinical significance. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:184–8.Google Scholar

McGovern, PG, Myers, ER, Silva, S, et al. Absence of secretory endometrium after false-positive home urine luteinizing hormone testing. Fertil Steril 2004;82:1273–7.Google Scholar

Murray, MJ, Meyer, WR, Zaino, RJ, et al. A critical analysis of the accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical utility of histologic endometrial dating in fertile women. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1333–43.Google Scholar

Coutifaris, C, Myers, ER, Guzick, DS, et al. Histological dating of timed endometrial biopsy tissue is not related to fertility status. Fertil Steril 2004;82:1264–72.CrossRef Google Scholar

Azziz, R, Carmina, E, Chen, Z, et al. Polycystic ovary syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2016;2:16057.Google Scholar

Fauser, BCJM, Tarlatzis, BC, Rebar, RW, et al. Consensus on women’s health aspects of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS): the Amsterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored 3rd PCOS Consensus Workshop Group. Fertil Steril 2012;97:28–38.e25.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored PCOS Consensus Workshop Group. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 2004;81:19–25.Google Scholar

Teede, HJ, Misso, ML, Costello, MF, et al.; International PCOS Network. Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 2018;110:364–79.Google Scholar

Bronson, R. Letrozole or clomiphene for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1462–4.Google Scholar PubMed

Reindollar, RH, Novak, M, Tho, SPT, McDonough, PG. Adult-onset amenorrhea: a study of 262 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:531–41.Google Scholar

Santoro, N, Filicori, M, Crowley, WF. Hypogonadotropic disorders in men and women: diagnosis and therapy with pulsatile gonadotropin-releasing hormone. Endocr Rev 1986;7:11–23.Google Scholar

Caronia, LM, Martin, C, Welt, CK, et al. A genetic basis for functional hypothalamic amenorrhea. N Engl J Med 2011;364:215–25.Google Scholar

Gordon, CM, Ackerman, KE, Berga, SL, et al. Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2017;102:1413–39.Google Scholar

Shufelt, CL, Torbati, T, Dutra, E. Hypothalamic amenorrhea and the long-term health consequences. Semin Reprod Med 2017;35:256–62.Google Scholar

Melmed, S, Casanueva, FF, Hoffman, AR, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of hyperprolactinemia: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:273–88.Google Scholar

Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. Practice bulletin no. 128: diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:197–206.Google Scholar

Cleary-Goldman, J, Malone, FD, Vidaver, J, et al. Impact of maternal age on obstetric outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:983–90.Google Scholar

Battaglia, DE, Goodwin, P, Klein, NA, Soules, M-R. Influence of maternal age on meiotic spindle assembly in oocytes from naturally cycling women. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2217–22.Google Scholar

Franasiak, JM, Forman, EJ, Hong, KH, et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril 2014;101:656–63.e1.CrossRef Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Practice Committee. Female age-related fertility decline. Am Soc Reprod Med 2014;101:633–4.Google Scholar

Broekmans, FJ, Kwee, J, Hendriks, DJ, Mol, BW, Lambalk, CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:685–718.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015;103:e44–50.Google Scholar

La Marca, A, Papaleo, E, Grisendi, V, Argento, C, Giulini, S, Volpe, A. Development of a nomogram based on markers of ovarian reserve for the individualisation of the follicle-stimulating hormone starting dose in in vitro fertilisation cycles. BJOG 2012;119:1171–9.Google Scholar

Dewailly, D, Andersen, CY, Balen, A, et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Müllerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:370–85.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Steiner, AZ, Herring, AH, Kesner, JS, et al. Antimüllerian hormone as a predictor of natural fecundability in women aged 30–42 years. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:798–804.Google Scholar

Hagen, CP, Vestergaard, S, Juul, A, et al. Low concentration of circulating anti-Müllerian hormone is not predictive of reduced fecundability in young healthy women: a prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 2012;98:1602–8.e2.Google Scholar

Bentzen, JG, Forman, JL, Pinborg, A, et al. Ovarian reserve parameters: a comparison between users and non-users of hormonal contraception. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;25:612–19.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kallio, S, Puurunen, J, Ruokonen, A, Vaskivuo, T, Piltonen, T, Tapanainen, JS. Antimüllerian hormone levels decrease in women using combined contraception independently of administration route. Fertil Steril 2013;99:1305–10.Google Scholar

Tehrani, FR, Solaymani-Dodaran, M, Azizi, F. A single test of antimullerian hormone in late reproductive-aged women is a good predictor of menopause. Menopause 2009;16:797–802.Google Scholar

Tehrani, FR, Shakeri, N, Solaymani-Dodaran, M, Azizi, F. Predicting age at menopause from serum antimüllerian hormone concentration. Menopause 2011;18:766–70.Google Scholar

Catteau-Jonard, S, Jamin, SP, Leclerc, A, Gonzalès, J, Dewailly, D, Di Clemente, N. Anti-Mullerian hormone, its receptor, FSH receptor, and androgen receptor genes are overexpressed by granulosa cells from stimulated Follicles in Women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93:4456–61.Google Scholar

Roberts, VJ, Barth, S, el-Roeiy, A, Yen, SS. Expression of inhibin/activin subunits and follistatin messenger ribonucleic acids and proteins in ovarian follicles and the corpus luteum during the human menstrual cycle. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1993;77:1402–10.Google Scholar PubMed

Rosen, MP, Johnstone, E, Addauan-Andersen, C, Cedars, MI. A lower antral follicle count is associated with infertility. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1950–4.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hendriks, DJ, Mol, B-WJ, Bancsi, LFJMM, Te Velde, ER, Broekmans, FJM, Hendriks, DJ. Antral follicle count in the prediction of poor ovarian response and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis and comparison with basal follicle-stimulating hormone level in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2005;83:291–301.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Rebar, RW, Erickson, GF, C Yen, SS. Idiopathic premature ovarian failure: clinical and endocrine characteristics. Fertil Steril 1982;37:35–41.Google Scholar

Nelson, LM, Covington, SN, Rebar, RW. An update: spontaneous premature ovarian failure is not an early menopause. Fertil Steril 2005;83:1327–32.Google Scholar

Monaghan, KG, Lyon, E, Spector, EB. ACMG Standards and Guidelines for fragile X testing: a revision to the disease-specific supplements to the Standards and Guidelines for Clinical Genetics Laboratories of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2013;15:575–86.Google Scholar

Betterle, C, Rossi, A, Pria, SD, et al. Premature ovarian failure: autoimmunity and natural history. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1993;39:35–43.Google Scholar

Falorni, A, Laureti, S, Candeloro, P, et al. Steroid-cell autoantibodies are preferentially expressed in women with premature ovarian failure who have adrenal autoimmunity. Fertil Steril 2002;78:270–9.Google Scholar

Green, DM, Sklar, CA, Boice, JD, et al. Ovarian failure and reproductive outcomes after childhood cancer treatment: results from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2374–81.Google Scholar

Chan, JL, Wang, ET. Oncofertility for women with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 2017;144:631–6.Google Scholar

Swart, P, Mol, BWJ, Van Der Veen, F, Van Beurden, M, Redekop, WK, Bossuyt, PMM. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1995;64:486–91.Google Scholar

Adelusi, B, Al-Nuaim, L, Makanjuola, D, Khashoggi, T, Chowdhury, N, Kangave, D. Accuracy of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopic hydrotubation in diagnosis of tubal patency. Fertil Steril 1995;63:1016–20.Google Scholar

Luciano, DE, Exacoustos, C, Luciano, AA. Contrast ultrasonography for tubal patency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014;21:994–8.Google Scholar

Luciano, DE, Exacoustos, C, Johns, DA, Luciano, AA. Can hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography replace hysterosalpingography in confirming tubal blockage after hysteroscopic sterilization and in the evaluation of the uterus and tubes in infertile patients? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:79.e1–5.Google Scholar

Maheux-Lacroix, S, Boutin, A, Moore, L, et al. Hysterosalpingosonography for diagnosing tubal occlusion in subfertile women: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2014;29:953–63.Google Scholar

Jeelani, R, Puscheck, EE. Imaging and the infertility evaluation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2017;60:93–107.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Groszmann, YS, Benacerraf, BR. Complete evaluation of anatomy and morphology of the infertile patient in a single visit; the modern infertility pelvic ultrasound examination. Fertil Steril 2016;105:1381–93.Google Scholar

Maheux-Lacroix, S, Li, F, Laberge, PY, Abbott, J. Imaging for polyps and leiomyomas in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:1425–36.Google Scholar

Bermejo, C, Martínez Ten, P, Cantarero, R, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35:593–601.Google Scholar

Ludwin, A, Pityński, K, Ludwin, I, Banas, T, Knafel, A. Two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography and sonohysterography versus hysteroscopy with laparoscopy in the differential diagnosis of septate, bicornuate, and arcuate uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20:90–9.Google Scholar

Ghi, T, Casadio, P, Kuleva, M, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril 2009;92:808–13.Google Scholar

Marsh, F, Kremer, C, Duffy, S. Delivering an effective outpatient service in gynaecology. A randomised controlled trial analysing the cost of outpatient versus daycase hysteroscopy. BJOG 2004;111:243–8.Google Scholar

Van Dongen, H, De Kroon, C, Jacobi, C, Trimbos, J, Jansen, F. Diagnostic hysteroscopy in abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2007;114:664–75.Google Scholar

Ahmad, G, O’Flynn, H, Duffy, JMN, Attarbashi, S, Pickersgill, A, Watson, A. Pain relief for office gynaecological procedures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;11:CD007710.Google Scholar

Mattar, OM, Abdalla, AR, Shehata, MSA, et al. Efficacy and safety of tramadol in pain relief during diagnostic outpatient hysteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril 2019;111:547–52.Google Scholar

Dueholm, M, Lundorf, E, Hansen, ES, Ledertoug, S, Olesen, F. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis, mapping, and measurement of uterine myomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:409–15.Google Scholar

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:210–26.Google Scholar

Anthoulakis, C, Nikoloudis, N. Pelvic MRI as the “gold standard” in the subsequent evaluation of ultrasound-indeterminate adnexal lesions: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2014;132:661–8.Google Scholar

Kinkel, K, Lu, Y, Mehdizade, A, Pelte, M-F, Hricak, H. Indeterminate ovarian mass at US: incremental value of second imaging test for characterization—meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology 2005;236:85–94.Google Scholar

Chan, YY, Jayaprakasan, K, Zamora, J, Thornton, JG, Raine-Fenning, N, Coomarasamy, A. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:761–71.Google Scholar

Dreisler, E, Sørensen, SS. Mullerian duct anomalies diagnosed by saline contrast sonohysterography: prevalence in a general population. Fertil Steril 2014;102:525–9.Google Scholar

Oppelt, P, Renner, SP, Brucker, S, et al. The VCUAM (Vagina Cervix Uterus Adnex-associated Malformation) classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril 2005;84:1493–7.Google Scholar

Reindollar, RH, Rogers Byrd, J, McDonough, PG. Delayed sexual development: a study of 252 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;140:371–80.Google Scholar

Pfeifer, S, Butts, S, Dumesic, D, et al. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2016;106:530–40.Google Scholar

Herbst, AL, Ulfelder, H, Poskanzer, DC. Adenocarcinoma of the vagina. N Engl J Med 1971;284:878–81.Google Scholar

[No authors listed]. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988;49:944–55.Google Scholar

Chandler, TM, Machan, LS, Harris, AC, Chang, SD. Müllerian duct anomalies: from diagnosis to intervention. Br J Radiol 2009;82:1034–42.Google Scholar

Day Baird, D, Dunson, DB, Hill, MC, Cousins, D, Schectman, JM. High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: ultrasound evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:100–7.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stewart, E, Cookson, C, Gandolfo, R, Schulze-Rath, R. Epidemiology of uterine fibroids: a systematic review. BJOG 2017;124:1501–12.Google Scholar

American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL): Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of submucous leiomyomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012;19:152–71.Google Scholar

Cholkeri-Singh, A, Sasaki, KJ. Hysteroscopy for infertile women: a review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;22:353–62.Google Scholar

Pritts, EA, Parker, WH, Olive, DL. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1215.Google Scholar

Surrey, ES, Minjarez, DA, Stevens, JM, Schoolcraft, WB. Effect of myomectomy on the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 2005;83:1473–9.Google Scholar

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Di Carlo, C, Minozzi, S, et al. Efficacy of hysteroscopy in improving reproductive outcomes of infertile couples: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2016;22:479–96.Google Scholar

Bosteels, J, van Wessel, S, Weyers, S, et al. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;12:CD009461.Google Scholar PubMed

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Removal of myomas in asymptomatic patients to improve fertility and/or reduce miscarriage rate: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2017;108:416–25.Google Scholar

Lee, SC, Kaunitz, AM, Sanchez-Ramos, L, Rhatigan, RM. The oncogenic potential of endometrial polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1197–205.Google Scholar

Karayalcin, R, Ozcan, S, Moraloglu, O, Ozyer, S, Mollamahmutoglu, L, Batıoglu, S. Results of 2500 office-based diagnostic hysteroscopies before IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;20:689–93.Google Scholar

Pérez-Medina, T, Bajo-Arenas, J, Salazar, F, et al. Endometrial polyps and their implication in the pregnancy rates of patients undergoing intrauterine insemination: a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod 2005;20:1632–5.Google Scholar

Khan, Z, Goldberg, JM. Hysteroscopic management of Asherman’s syndrome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;25:218–28.Google Scholar PubMed

Deans, R, Abbott, J. Review of intrauterine adhesions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010;17:555–69.Google Scholar

Hooker, AB, Lemmers, M, Thurkow, AL, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of intrauterine adhesions after miscarriage: prevalence, risk factors and long-term reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:262–78.Google Scholar

AAGL Elevating Gynecologic Surgery. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines on intrauterine adhesions developed in collaboration with the European Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;24:695–705.Google Scholar

March, CM. Management of Asherman’s syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;23:63–76.Google Scholar

Xiao, S, Wan, Y, Xue, M, et al. Etiology, treatment, and reproductive prognosis of women with moderate-to-severe intrauterine adhesions. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2014;125:121–4.Google Scholar

Grace, GA, Devaleenal, DB, Natrajan, M. Genital tuberculosis in females. Indian J Med Res 2017;145:425–36.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2016 assisted reproductive technology: national summary report. 2018. Available from: www.cdc.gov/art/pdf/2016-report/ART-2016-National-Summary-Report.pdf.Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2017. 2017. Available from: www.cdc.gov/std/stats17/2017-STD-Surveillance-Report_CDC-clearance-9.10.18.pdf.Google Scholar

Tsevat, DG, Wiesenfeld, HC, Parks, C, Peipert, JF. Sexually transmitted diseases and infertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:1–9.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, A, Chapron, C, Dubuisson, J-B, Vieira, M, Dousset, B, Bréart, G. Relation between pain symptoms and the anatomic location of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Fertil Steril 2002;78:719–26.Google Scholar

De Ziegler, D, Borghese, B, Chapron, C. Endometriosis and infertility: pathophysiology and management. Lancet 2010;376:730–8.Google Scholar

Kissler, S, Hamscho, N, Zangos, S, et al. Diminished pregnancy rates in endometriosis due to impaired uterotubal transport assessed by hysterosalpingoscintigraphy. BJOG 2005;112:1391–6.Google Scholar

Muzii, L, Tucci, D, Di Feliciantonio, M, et al. Antimullerian hormone is reduced in the presence of ovarian endometriomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2018;110:932–40.Google Scholar

Exacoustos, C, Manganaro, L, Zupi, E. Imaging for the evaluation of endometriosis and adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014;28:655–81.Google Scholar

Exacoustos, C, Zupi, E, Piccione, E. Ultrasound imaging for ovarian and deep infiltrating endometriosis. Semin Reprod Med 2017;35:5–24.Google Scholar

Brown, J, Farquhar, C. Endometriosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;3:CD009590.Google Scholar

Rehmer, JM, Flyckt, RL, Goodman, LR, Falcone, T. Management of endometriomas. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2019;74:232–40.Google Scholar

Hart, RJ, Hickey, M, Maouris, P, Buckett, W. Excisional surgery versus ablative surgery for ovarian endometriomata. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;2:CD004992.Google Scholar

Surrey, ES. Endometriosis-related infertility: the role of the assisted reproductive technologies. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:482959.Google Scholar

Dunselman, GAJ, Vermeulen, N, Becker, C, et al. ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod 2014;29:400–12.Google Scholar

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Endometriosis and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2012;98:591–8.Google Scholar

van der Houwen, LEE, Lier, MCI, Schreurs, AMF, et al. Continuous oral contraceptives versus long-term pituitary desensitization prior to IVF/ICSI in moderate to severe endometriosis: study protocol of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod Open 2019;2019:hoz001.Google Scholar

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evidence-based treatments for couples with unexplained infertility: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2020;113:305–22.Google Scholar

Gunn, DD, Wright Bates, G. Evidence-based approach to unexplained infertility: a systematic review. Fertil Steril 2016;105:1566–74.Google Scholar

Pisarska, MD, Chan, JL, Lawrenson, K, Gonzalez, TL, Wang, ET. Genetics and epigenetics of infertility and treatments on outcomes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2019;104:1871–86.Google Scholar

Pisarska, MD, Barlow, G, Kuo, F-T. Minireview: roles of the forkhead transcription factor FOXL2 in granulosa cell biology and pathology. Endocrinology 2011;152:1199–208.Google Scholar

McGuire, MM, Bowden, W, Engel, NJ, Ahn, HW, Kovanci, E, Rajkovic, A. Genomic analysis using high-resolution single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays reveals novel microdeletions associated with premature ovarian failure. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1595–600.Google Scholar

Cousineau, TM, Domar, AD. Psychological impact of infertility. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2007;21:293–308.Google Scholar

Peterson, BD, Sejbaek, CS, Pirritano, M, Schmidt, L. Are severe depressive symptoms associated with infertility-related distress in individuals and their partners? Hum Reprod 2014;29:76–82.Google Scholar

Peterson, BD, Newton, CR, Rosen, KH, Skaggs, GE. Gender differences in how men and women who are referred for IVF cope with infertility stress. Hum Reprod 2006;21:2443–9.Google Scholar

Schmidt, L, Holstein, BE, Boivin, J, et al. Patients’ attitudes to medical and psychosocial aspects of care in fertility clinics: findings from the Copenhagen Multi-centre Psychosocial Infertility (COMPI) Research Programme. Hum Reprod 2003;18:628–37.Google Scholar

Jordan, C, Revenson, TA. Gender differences in coping with infertility: a meta-analysis. J Behav Med 1999;22:341–58.Google Scholar