These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
237 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22738098)
1. Cumulative birth rates with linked assisted reproductive technology cycles. Luke B; Brown MB; Wantman E; Lederman A; Gibbons W; Schattman GL; Lobo RA; Leach RE; Stern JE N Engl J Med; 2012 Jun; 366(26):2483-91. PubMed ID: 22738098 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assisted reproductive technology use and outcomes among women with a history of cancer. Luke B; Brown MB; Missmer SA; Spector LG; Leach RE; Williams M; Koch L; Smith YR; Stern JE; Ball GD; Schymura MJ Hum Reprod; 2016 Jan; 31(1):183-9. PubMed ID: 26577302 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The number of oocytes associated with maximum cumulative live birth rates per aspiration depends on female age: a population study of 221 221 treatment cycles. Law YJ; Zhang N; Venetis CA; Chambers GM; Harris K Hum Reprod; 2019 Sep; 34(9):1778-1787. PubMed ID: 31398253 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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. Toftager M; Bogstad J; Løssl K; Prætorius L; Zedeler A; Bryndorf T; Nilas L; Pinborg A Hum Reprod; 2017 Mar; 32(3):556-567. PubMed ID: 28130435 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. How do cumulative live birth rates and cumulative multiple live birth rates over complete courses of assisted reproductive technology treatment per woman compare among registries? De Neubourg D; Bogaerts K; Blockeel C; Coetsier T; Delvigne A; Devreker F; Dubois M; Gillain N; Gordts S; Wyns C Hum Reprod; 2016 Jan; 31(1):93-9. PubMed ID: 26537922 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Definition of a clinical strategy to enhance the efficacy, efficiency and safety of egg donation cycles with imported vitrified oocytes. Rienzi L; Cimadomo D; Maggiulli R; Vaiarelli A; Dusi L; Buffo L; Amendola MG; Colamaria S; Giuliani M; Bruno G; Stoppa M; Ubaldi FM Hum Reprod; 2020 Apr; 35(4):785-795. PubMed ID: 32240287 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cumulative live birth rates for women returning to ART treatment for a second ART-conceived child. Paul RC; Fitzgerald O; Lieberman D; Venetis C; Chambers GM Hum Reprod; 2020 Jun; 35(6):1432-1440. PubMed ID: 32380547 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Predicted probabilities of live birth following assisted reproductive technology using United States national surveillance data from 2016 to 2018. Gaskins AJ; Zhang Y; Chang J; Kissin DM Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2023 May; 228(5):557.e1-557.e10. PubMed ID: 36702210 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A prediction model for live birth and multiple births within the first three cycles of assisted reproductive technology. Luke B; Brown MB; Wantman E; Stern JE; Baker VL; Widra E; Coddington CC; Gibbons WE; Ball GD Fertil Steril; 2014 Sep; 102(3):744-52. PubMed ID: 24934487 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Calculating cumulative live-birth rates from linked cycles of assisted reproductive technology (ART): data from the Massachusetts SART CORS. Stern JE; Brown MB; Luke B; Wantman E; Lederman A; Missmer SA; Hornstein MD Fertil Steril; 2010 Sep; 94(4):1334-1340. PubMed ID: 19596309 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Preimplantation genetic testing and chances of a healthy live birth amongst recipients of fresh donor oocytes in the United States. Roeca C; Johnson R; Carlson N; Polotsky AJ J Assist Reprod Genet; 2020 Sep; 37(9):2283-2292. PubMed ID: 32617730 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Guidelines for the number of embryos to transfer following in vitro fertilization No. 182, September 2006. JOINT SOGC-CFAS Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2008 Aug; 102(2):203-16. PubMed ID: 18773532 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: assisted reproductive technology 2012†. de Mouzon J; Chambers GM; Zegers-Hochschild F; Mansour R; Ishihara O; Banker M; Dyer S; Kupka M; Adamson GD Hum Reprod; 2020 Aug; 35(8):1900-1913. PubMed ID: 32699900 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Patient and cycle characteristics predicting high pregnancy rates with single-embryo transfer: an analysis of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology outcomes between 2004 and 2013. Mersereau J; Stanhiser J; Coddington C; Jones T; Luke B; Brown MB Fertil Steril; 2017 Nov; 108(5):750-756. PubMed ID: 28923285 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Adherence to embryo transfer guidelines in favorable-prognosis patients aged less than 35 years using autologous oocytes and in recipients using donor oocytes: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System study. Gingold JA; Fazzari M; Gerber R; Kappy M; Goodman M; Lieman H; Pollack S; Singh M; Jindal S Fertil Steril; 2022 Mar; 117(3):548-559. PubMed ID: 35058041 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of race and ethnicity on utilization and outcomes of assisted reproductive technology in the USA. Shapiro AJ; Darmon SK; Barad DH; Albertini DF; Gleicher N; Kushnir VA Reprod Biol Endocrinol; 2017 Jun; 15(1):44. PubMed ID: 28595591 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]