Modified natural cycle IVF versus conventional stimulation in advanced-age Bologna poor responders.

Clicks: 429
ID: 57086
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #5 of 10 articles by views in reproductive biomedicine online

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Do ongoing pregnancy rates (OPR) differ between modified natural cycle IVF (MNC-IVF) and conventional high-dose ovarian stimulation (HDOS) in advanced-age Bologna poor responders?This was a retrospective cohort study including patients with poor ovarian response (POR) attending a tertiary referral university hospital from 1 January 2011 to 1 March 2017. All women who fulfilled the Bologna criteria for POR and aged ≥40 years who underwent their first intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle in the study centre were included.In total, 476 advanced-age Bologna poor responder patients were included in the study: 189 in the MNC-IVF group and 287 in the HDOS group. OPR per patient were significantly lower in the MNC-IVF group (5/189, 2.6%) compared with the HDOS group (29/287, 10.1%) (P = 0.002). However, after adjustment for relevant confounders (number of oocytes and presence of at least one top-quality embryo), the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the type of treatment strategy (HDOS versus MNC-IVF) was not significantly associated with OPR (odds ratio 2.56, 95% confidence interval 0.9-7.6).In advanced-age Bologna poor responders, MNC-IVF, which is a more patient-friendly approach, could be a reasonable alternative in this difficult-to-treat group of women.
Reference Key
drakopoulos2019modifiedreproductive Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors
Journal reproductive biomedicine online
Year 2019
DOI
S1472-6483(19)30547-4
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.