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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

228 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28748493)

  • 1. Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic screening for women older than 37 undergoing in vitro fertilization.
    Collins SC; Xu X; Mak W
    J Assist Reprod Genet; 2017 Nov; 34(11):1515-1522. PubMed ID: 28748493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic screening and in vitro fertilization versus expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss.
    Murugappan G; Ohno MS; Lathi RB
    Fertil Steril; 2015 May; 103(5):1215-20. PubMed ID: 25772770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening: a reanalysis of United States assisted reproductive technology data 2011-2012.
    Kushnir VA; Darmon SK; Albertini DF; Barad DH; Gleicher N
    Fertil Steril; 2016 Jul; 106(1):75-79. PubMed ID: 26952783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Modified natural cycle versus controlled ovarian hyperstimulation IVF: a cost-effectiveness evaluation of three simulated treatment scenarios.
    Groen H; Tonch N; Simons AH; van der Veen F; Hoek A; Land JA
    Hum Reprod; 2013 Dec; 28(12):3236-46. PubMed ID: 24166594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in the United States: an analysis of cost and birth outcomes from 158,665 in vitro fertilization cycles.
    Lee M; Lofgren KT; Thomas A; Lanes A; Goldman R; Ginsburg ES; Hornstein MD
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Jul; 225(1):55.e1-55.e17. PubMed ID: 33539823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy is cost-effective, shortens treatment time, and reduces the risk of failed embryo transfer and clinical miscarriage.
    Neal SA; Morin SJ; Franasiak JM; Goodman LR; Juneau CR; Forman EJ; Werner MD; Scott RT
    Fertil Steril; 2018 Oct; 110(5):896-904. PubMed ID: 30316435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43.
    Lee HL; McCulloh DH; Hodes-Wertz B; Adler A; McCaffrey C; Grifo JA
    J Assist Reprod Genet; 2015 Mar; 32(3):435-44. PubMed ID: 25578536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Preimplantation genetic screening in older women: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Mersereau JE; Plunkett BA; Cedars MI
    Fertil Steril; 2008 Sep; 90(3):592-8. PubMed ID: 18001724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Preimplantation genetic screening: who benefits?
    Kang HJ; Melnick AP; Stewart JD; Xu K; Rosenwaks Z
    Fertil Steril; 2016 Sep; 106(3):597-602. PubMed ID: 27143516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy for women with subfertility in China: an economic evaluation using evidence from the CESE-PGS trial.
    He X; Wang X; Shen J; Wan B; Wang Y; Zhang Z; Cai L; Bao Y; Ding H; Li X
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2023 Apr; 23(1):254. PubMed ID: 37060068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cost-effectiveness of embryo transfer strategies: a decision analytic model using long-term costs and consequences of singletons and multiples born as a consequence of IVF.
    van Heesch MM; van Asselt AD; Evers JL; van der Hoeven MA; Dumoulin JC; van Beijsterveldt CE; Bonsel GJ; Dykgraaf RH; van Goudoever JB; Koopman-Esseboom C; Nelen WL; Steiner K; Tamminga P; Tonch N; Torrance HL; Dirksen CD
    Hum Reprod; 2016 Nov; 31(11):2527-2540. PubMed ID: 27907897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Intent to treat analysis of in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic screening versus expectant management in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss.
    Murugappan G; Shahine LK; Perfetto CO; Hickok LR; Lathi RB
    Hum Reprod; 2016 Aug; 31(8):1668-74. PubMed ID: 27278003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Next generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic screening improves pregnancy outcomes compared with array comparative genomic hybridization in single thawed euploid embryo transfer cycles.
    Friedenthal J; Maxwell SM; Munné S; Kramer Y; McCulloh DH; McCaffrey C; Grifo JA
    Fertil Steril; 2018 Apr; 109(4):627-632. PubMed ID: 29605407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Expanding reproductive lifespan: a cost-effectiveness study on oocyte freezing.
    van Loendersloot LL; Moolenaar LM; Mol BW; Repping S; van der Veen F; Goddijn M
    Hum Reprod; 2011 Nov; 26(11):3054-60. PubMed ID: 21896545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: pre- and post-intervention study.
    Ubaldi FM; Capalbo A; Colamaria S; Ferrero S; Maggiulli R; Vajta G; Sapienza F; Cimadomo D; Giuliani M; Gravotta E; Vaiarelli A; Rienzi L
    Hum Reprod; 2015 Sep; 30(9):2097-106. PubMed ID: 26150408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Towards a better understanding of preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy: insights from a virtual trial for women under the age of 40 when transferring embryos one at a time.
    Scriven PN
    Reprod Biol Endocrinol; 2017 Jun; 15(1):49. PubMed ID: 28666459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cost-effectiveness of freeze-all policy - A retrospective study based upon the outcome of cumulative live births.
    Chang JC; Yi YC; Shen PS; Guu HF; Chen YF; Kung HF; Chen LY; Chen MJ
    Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Jan; 60(1):125-131. PubMed ID: 33494984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cost of transferring one through five embryos per in vitro fertilization cycle from various payor perspectives.
    Little SE; Ratcliffe J; Caughey AB
    Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Sep; 108(3 Pt 1):593-601. PubMed ID: 16946220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Is IVF-served two different ways-more cost-effective than IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation?
    Tjon-Kon-Fat RI; Bensdorp AJ; Bossuyt PM; Koks C; Oosterhuis GJ; Hoek A; Hompes P; Broekmans FJ; Verhoeve HR; de Bruin JP; van Golde R; Repping S; Cohlen BJ; Lambers MD; van Bommel PF; Slappendel E; Perquin D; Smeenk J; Pelinck MJ; Gianotten J; Hoozemans DA; Maas JW; Groen H; Eijkemans MJ; van der Veen F; Mol BW; van Wely M
    Hum Reprod; 2015 Oct; 30(10):2331-9. PubMed ID: 26269539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. No beneficial effect of preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age with a high risk for embryonic aneuploidy.
    Twisk M; Mastenbroek S; Hoek A; Heineman MJ; van der Veen F; Bossuyt PM; Repping S; Korevaar JC
    Hum Reprod; 2008 Dec; 23(12):2813-7. PubMed ID: 18567895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.