Original Article
Elective Single-Embryo Transfer versus Double-Embryo Transfer in in Vitro Fertilization
N Engl J Med 2004; 351:2392-2402December 2, 2004
- Abstract
Background
The risks of premature birth and perinatal death are increased after in vitro fertilization. These risks are mainly due to the high incidence of multiple births, which relates to the number of embryos transferred.
Methods
We performed a randomized, multicenter trial to assess the equivalence of two approaches to in vitro fertilization with respect to the rates of pregnancy that result in at least one live birth and to compare associated rates of multiple gestation. Women less than 36 years of age who had at least two good-quality embryos were randomly assigned either to undergo transfer of a single fresh embryo and, if there was no live birth, subsequent transfer of a single frozen-and-thawed embryo, or to undergo a single transfer of two fresh embryos. Equivalence was defined as a difference of no more than 10 percentage points in the rates of pregnancy resulting in at least one live birth.
Results
Pregnancy resulting in at least one live birth occurred in 142 of 331 women (42.9 percent) in the double-embryo-transfer group as compared with 128 of 330 women (38.8 percent) in the single-embryo-transfer group (difference, 4.1 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, –3.4 to 11.6 percentage points); rates of multiple births were 33.1 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively (P<0.001). These results do not demonstrate equivalence of the two approaches in rates of live births, but they do indicate that any reduction in the rate of live births with the transfer of single embryos is unlikely to exceed 11.6 percentage points.
Conclusions
In women under 36 years of age, transferring one fresh embryo and then, if needed, one frozen-and-thawed embryo dramatically reduces the rate of multiple births while achieving a rate of live births that is not substantially lower than the rate that is achievable with a double-embryo transfer.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Flow Chart Showing the Enrollment and Status of Cycles in the Study.Table 1
Characteristics of the Patients.Article Activity
- Article
With the rapid development of techniques of in vitro fertilization, resulting in higher rates of implantation, a substantial increase in the rate of multiple births has become evident. Several studies have reported less favorable obstetrical outcomes after in vitro fertilization than after spontaneous conception,1-7 including higher risks of prematurity, low or very low birth weight, and perinatal death. The increased risk of prematurity is primarily due to the greatly increased rate of multiple births. However, even for singletons born after in vitro fertilization, adverse outcomes have been found to be more frequent than among children born after spontaneous conception.1-7 An increased risk of neurologic sequelae has also been noted, particularly in preterm infants but also in term infants conceived by in vitro fertilization.8 An increased risk of malformations has been reported in children born after in vitro fertilization, particularly in instances of multiple gestation.9
The most important factor influencing the rate of multiple births is the number of embryos transferred. In Sweden, in 1993, there was a voluntary reduction in the number of embryos routinely transferred, from three to two. This resulted in the virtual elimination of the conception of triplets by in vitro fertilization, whereas the pregnancy rate and the live-birth rate remained essentially unaffected at 35 percent and approximately 25 percent per transfer, respectively. The rate of multiple births remained fairly constant at 20 to 25 percent.10 In a large observational study, a reduction in the number of embryos transferred, from three to two, had little effect on the rates of live births but considerably decreased rates of multiple births; however, multiple births remained frequent.11
A strategy involving the transfer of only one embryo would be expected to result mainly in singleton pregnancies but might also lead to a considerable decrease in the overall birth rate. Several studies have been conducted to identify patients suitable for elective single-embryo transfer.12,13 In a retrospective study,13 it was found that the only variables predictive of multiple birth were the mother's age and the number of good-quality embryos transferred. From this analysis, cutoff limits were calculated for the woman's age for single-embryo transfer in order to halve the rate of pregnancy with twins in the total population undergoing in vitro fertilization. According to this analysis, the overall birth rate in the total in vitro fertilization population would be reduced from 29 percent to 25 percent after the transfer of the fresh embryo but would be completely restored after an additional transfer of one frozen-and-thawed embryo. These assumptions were used in the design of the present study. Previous randomized trials evaluating single-embryo transfer are few and have included a limited number of patients.14,15
We designed this study to test the following hypothesis: among women less than 36 years of age, the rate of pregnancies resulting in at least one live birth in patients who undergo the transfer of a single fresh embryo and, if no live birth results, the subsequent transfer of a frozen-and-thawed embryo, would be equivalent to the rate in patients who undergo the simultaneous transfer of two fresh embryos. We also hypothesized that single-embryo transfers would reduce the rate of multiple gestation.
Methods
Patients
Women were eligible for randomization if they were less than 36 years of age at the time of the transfer of the fresh embryo, were undergoing their first or second in vitro fertilization cycle, and had at least two embryos of good quality available for transfer or freezing. Good-quality embryos were defined by their morphologic features and cleavage rate and included embryos with less than 20 percent fragmentation and 4 to 6 cells at day 2, 6 to 10 cells at day 3,16 or expanded blastocysts at day 5 or 6.17 The original protocol stipulated that the patient had to be less than 35 years of age and have at least three good-quality embryos available, but these criteria were modified in an amendment after the first 215 patients were enrolled, owing to a change in usual clinical practice in Sweden. Eleven clinics, both public and private, participated. The patients were recruited from May 2000 to October 2003.
Study Design
The study was approved by the ethics committees of the participating clinics, and all patients provided written informed consent. Each clinic was allowed to follow its own local stimulation protocol. The majority of the women were treated with the use of a stimulation protocol that included down-regulation with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. Stimulation was performed with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (Gonal-F, Serono; Puregon, Organon) or urinary-derived follicle-stimulating hormone (Menopur, Ferring). Oocyte retrieval and fertilization were performed by conventional in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection by means of standard techniques. Embryo transfer was performed two, three, or five days after oocyte retrieval. Progesterone was administered daily, either intramuscularly or vaginally, from the time of oocyte retrieval until the time of a negative pregnancy test or until two weeks after a positive pregnancy test.
Before the transfer, when the embryos could be evaluated, randomization was performed locally by the embryologist with the use of a computerized randomization program. Randomization was at a ratio of 1:1. Optimal allocation was applied according to Pocock's minimization technique for sequential randomization,18 with consideration given to the woman's age, the presence or absence of tubal infertility, the number of previous in vitro fertilization cycles involving transfers, the number of previous in vitro fertilization cycles resulting in birth, the day of embryo transfer, and the number of good-quality embryos available.
The study was double-blind; neither the patient nor the physician knew whether one embryo or two embryos had been transferred. The blinding continued until a urine test or a serum pregnancy test was performed — that is, during the implantation phase. Patients in the single-embryo-transfer group who did not conceive in the cycle in which the fresh embryo had been transferred, or who miscarried, subsequently underwent the transfer of a single frozen-and-thawed embryo in a natural or a hormone-stimulated cycle. If the first frozen-and-thawed embryo was not viable, other embryos were thawed, one by one, until a viable embryo could be transferred. If no surviving embryos were available after thawing, no transfer took place.
The primary outcome was the cumulative rate of pregnancy resulting in at least one live birth. Secondary outcomes were the rates of pregnancy, implantation, multiple births (as a percentage of live births), spontaneous abortion, and ectopic pregnancy. A pregnancy was defined as a positive test for human chorionic gonadotropin in urine (>20 IU per liter) or a serum level of human chorionic gonadotropin 2 IU per liter or more two weeks after embryo transfer. The implantation rate was defined as the number of gestational sacs divided by the number of embryos transferred.
Calculation of Sample Size
The study was designed as an equivalence study. Before the start of the study, we calculated sample size on the basis of the primary outcome of the live-birth rate, after applying the following assumptions: if the true rate of live births in the two treatment groups (one fresh-embryo transfer, perhaps followed by one frozen-and-thawed transfer [1+(1)], or one fresh double-embryo transfer [2+0]) is 0.30, then the probability is 0.80 that the upper limit of the 95 percent confidence interval for the difference in the probability of live birth between the groups is lower than 0.10, if 330 patients who can be evaluated are included in each group. The number of patients lost to follow-up was assumed to be zero. Thus, 660 patients were needed.
Statistical Analysis
The primary statistical analysis was carried out according to the intention-to-treat principle and included 661 patients. We also performed a secondary per-protocol analysis, in which 634 patients were analyzed according to the actual treatment given (single-embryo transfer [1+(1)] or double-embryo transfer [2+0]). Patients who did not undergo transfer of a frozen-and-thawed embryo because there were no surviving embryos were still included in both analyses as part of the single-embryo-transfer group. Comparisons of continuous variables were performed with the use of Fisher's nonparametric permutation test, and comparisons of dichotomous variables with the use of Fisher's exact test. For the differences in proportions between groups, 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated. For descriptive statistics, we used means ±SD and range. All tests were two-sided, and the level of significance was 0.05. SPSS software (version 11.5) and SAS software (version 8.2) were used.
The sponsors of this study played no role in the study design, the collection of data, the analysis or interpretation of the data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Results
Patients
A total of 661 patients underwent randomization. Of those, 331 patients were randomly assigned to undergo double-embryo transfer and 330 to undergo elective single-embryo transfer (i.e., there were at least two good-quality embryos to choose from) (Figure 1Figure 1
Flow Chart Showing the Enrollment and Status of Cycles in the Study.). The demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1Table 1Characteristics of the Patients..Intention-to-Treat Analysis
The outcomes of the two approaches to in vitro fertilization, on the basis of the intention-to-treat analysis, are shown in Table 2Table 2
Outcomes According to Treatment Group in the Intention-to-Treat Analysis.. In the single-embryo-transfer group, 128 women had a pregnancy resulting in at least one live birth (38.8 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 33.5 to 44.3 percent), as compared with 142 women in the double-embryo transfer group (42.9 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 37.5 to 48.4 percent). The absolute difference between the groups was 4.1 percent, and the 95 percent confidence interval for the difference was –3.4 to 11.6 percent. These results do not demonstrate equivalence of the two approaches with respect to the rates of live births according to prespecified criteria, but they do indicate that the plausible rate of live births for the group undergoing elective single-embryo transfers ranges from 11.6 percent lower to 3.4 percent greater than that in the double-embryo-transfer group.In the cycle in which a single fresh embryo was transferred, the rate of live births was significantly lower than in the double-embryo-transfer group (27.6 percent vs. 42.9 percent, P<0.001). In the subsequent cycle, involving transfer of a frozen-and-thawed embryo, the rate of live births was 29 of 177 (16.4 percent). Thirty-eight patients did not receive a thawed-embryo transfer because they had no surviving embryos after thawing; they were included in the single-embryo-transfer group in both the intention-to-treat and the per-protocol analyses. The rate of multiple births was 47 of 142 (46 pairs of twins and 1 set of triplets) in the double-embryo-transfer group, as compared with 1 of 128 (1 pair of twins) in the single-embryo-transfer group (33.1 percent vs. 0.8 percent, P<0.001). The results in the single-embryo-transfer group were calculated by combining the results of 120 live births after conception by in vitro fertilization and 8 births after spontaneous pregnancies (Table 2). Since there was a shift during the trial toward less strict inclusion criteria for randomization, a subgroup analysis was performed that compared patients who underwent randomization before and after this change. No significant difference in the cumulative rate of live births was noted between the first period and the second period (83 of 215 [38.6 percent] vs. 187 of 446 [41.9 percent]).
Per-Protocol Analysis
The outcomes of treatment based on the per-protocol analysis are shown in Table 3Table 3
Outcome According to Treatment Group in the Per-Protocol Analysis.. According to the per-protocol analysis, the rate of live births after a fresh-embryo transfer and the cumulative rate of live births were 91 of 307 (29.6 percent) and 119 of 307 (38.8 percent), respectively, in the single-embryo-transfer group. In the double-embryo-transfer group, the rate of live births was 142 of 327 (43.4 percent). The rate of multiple births as a percentage of live births was 33.1 percent in the double-embryo-transfer group and 0.8 percent in the single-embryo-transfer group.Discussion
In this large, randomized study, transferring one fresh embryo, followed if necessary by the transfer of one frozen-and-thawed embryo, did not result in a substantially lower rate of pregnancy resulting in at least one live birth than did transferring two fresh embryos on a single occasion. Equivalence in the rates of live births between the two methods of transfer was not confirmed according to our prespecified criteria, but the 95 percent confidence interval for the difference demonstrates that the plausible rate would not be more than 11.6 percentage points lower for single-embryo transfers than for double-embryo transfers. At the same time, the use of single-embryo transfers resulted in a marked reduction in the rate of multiple gestations. These data provide support for the use of single-embryo transfers in certain patients undergoing in vitro fertilization.
Single-embryo transfers seem suitable for many patients in clinical practice. In the present study, 37.1 percent of 7839 consecutive cycles (2698 eligible cycles plus 209 cycles in patients who had previously participated in this study) at the participating in vitro fertilization clinics met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1). This is probably a representative estimate for many in vitro fertilization clinics. The percentage of cycles suitable for single-embryo transfer and the findings regarding the rates of live births and multiple gestation are consistent with those of our previous retrospective study.13 Studies of elective single-embryo transfer that have been performed in Belgium and Finland have shown satisfactory results in the group of patients who undergo single-embryo transfers, with rates of clinical pregnancy of 30 to 40 percent per transfer.14,15,19-24
Data comparing single-embryo transfer and double-embryo transfer are limited. In a randomized trial comparing the two types of fresh-embryo-transfer cycles among 53 women in Belgium,14 the rate of ongoing pregnancy was significantly higher in the double-embryo-transfer group than in the single-embryo-transfer group (74.0 percent vs. 38.5 percent). In a similar trial in Finland15 involving 144 patients, the clinical pregnancy rate was 32.4 percent in the group that underwent single-embryo transfer and 47.1 percent in the group that underwent double-embryo transfer. In contrast, the present study included the possibility of receiving two single-embryo transfers, but only one at a time — if the fresh-embryo transfer did not result in a live birth, one cycle involving the transfer of a frozen-and-thawed embryo was performed. Unlike the report from Finland,15 our study showed a significantly lower rate of pregnancy resulting in at least one live birth after a single fresh-embryo transfer than with the transfer of two fresh embryos at one time. Thus, this report emphasizes the importance of performing additional cycles with frozen-and-thawed embryos.
It is well known that the risk of an adverse outcome after in vitro fertilization is attributable in large part to the greatly increased rate of multiple births.1-5,7 The rates of multiple gestation after in vitro fertilization in Europe and the United States are 26.4 percent and 35.4 percent, respectively,25,26 underscoring the magnitude of the problem. However, higher risks of preterm delivery and low birth weight have also been observed for singletons conceived by in vitro fertilization and have been attributed at least in part to parental characteristics associated with infertility, such as high maternal age and nulliparity; these, of course, would not be influenced by the use of single-embryo transfer.1-7 Nonetheless, a substantial reduction in multiple births after in vitro fertilization would dramatically decrease the risks associated with prematurity and low birth weight for children born after in vitro fertilization.
A possible disincentive to the use of single-embryo transfers is the concern that the chance of pregnancy will be reduced. This concern was noted among the reasons for nonparticipation in our study during the initial year. Similar attitudes were noted in other countries during the late 1990s.27 In Sweden, however, a combination of media coverage and new legislation, which stated that single-embryo transfer should be the routine procedure and that two embryos could be transferred only in selected cases, has led to a general implementation of single-embryo transfer and a change in attitude among patients.
The acceptability of single-embryo transfer for both patients and clinicians will relate in part to how the cost of in vitro fertilization is covered. Single-embryo transfer is likely to be more readily accepted when there is insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization. If individual patients pay for in vitro fertilization, however, they might prefer that more embryos be transferred, in an effort to maximize their chances of having a live-born child. However, in Sweden, the introduction of single-embryo transfer during the past two years has been well accepted at both private and public in vitro fertilization clinics. Other disadvantages of single-embryo transfer, such as inconvenience and the stress of an additional cycle (although, in this case, a cycle not requiring ovarian stimulation and the induction of ovulation), must be balanced against the much higher risk of multiple gestation with double-embryo transfer.
It is possible that psychological factors, such as anxiety, may affect rates of implantation.28 Because the patients in our study were randomly assigned to therapy, and the patients and physicians were blinded to the number of fresh embryos transferred, expectations and psychological factors would be expected to be similar in the two groups.
Eight patients conceived spontaneously between the cycles with the fresh and the thawed embryos. These patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis as pregnant but were not included in the per-protocol analysis, since the pregnancy was not a direct result of the treatment given. Thirty-eight patients received no thawed embryos, since no embryos survived. This outcome was expected with this approach, and those 38 patients were included in the single-embryo-transfer group in both the intention-to-treat and the per-protocol analyses.
Results of cycles with frozen-and-thawed embryos vary considerably among clinics. The approach based on cumulative single-embryo transfer requires a well-functioning freezing program, and clinics contemplating recommending single-embryo transfers to their patients must focus on the freezing procedure in order to improve their cumulative rate of pregnancies resulting in live births.29 Single-embryo transfer may be particularly useful in cycles with frozen-and-thawed embryos, since the embryos can be frozen and thawed one by one without further losses, whereas the use of single-embryo transfer in cycles with fresh embryos (with freezing of surplus embryos) will result in some loss of embryo quality due to the freezing-and-thawing procedure itself.
In conclusion, this study shows that a single fresh-embryo transfer, followed (if there was no live birth) by the transfer of one frozen-and-thawed embryo, results in a marked reduction in the rate of multiple gestations but not in a substantial reduction in the rate of pregnancy resulting in one or more live births. Our results strongly support the introduction of elective single-embryo transfer as an effective method for women less than 36 years of age to reduce the high risk of multiple births associated with a transfer of two embryos.
Supported by a grant from Serono Nordic, by Sahlgrenska Academy and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, by the Göteborg Medical Society, and by the Hjalmar Svensson Foundation.
Dr. Bergh and Dr. Thurin report having received a grant from Serono Nordic for this study. Dr. Hillensjö reports having received speaker's fees from Organon.
We are indebted to G. Borg, K. Borg, A. Johansson, M. Wallström, M. Blennborn, E. Odland Anundsen, and H. Udengaard for their recruitment of patients and collection of data; to K. Lundin, B. Söderlund, and S. Zalavary for their contributions to the collection of laboratory data; and to N.-G. Pehrsson for statistical support.
Source Information
From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute for Health of Women and Children, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden (A.T., A.S., C.B.); the Fertility Unit, Haugesund Hospital, Haugesund, Norway (J.H.); Fertility Center Scandinavia, Carlanderska Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden (T.H.); the Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden (B.J.); and the Fertility Clinic, Rigshospital, Copenhagen (A.P.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Bergh at Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute for Health of Women and Children, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, SE-413 45 Göteborg, Sweden, or at christina.bergh@vgregion.se.
Appendix
The following investigators participated in the study: Sweden — A. Thurin, L. Nilsson, C. Bergh (Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute for Health of Women and Children, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg); M. Wikland, T. Hillensjö, M. Wood, J. Olofsson (Fertility Center Scandinavia, Carlanderska Hospital, Göteborg); L. Marsk, K.-G. Nygren (IVF Clinic, Sophiahemmet, Stockholm); B. Jablonowska, S. Kjellberg (Reproductive Medicine Center, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University Hospital, Linköping); S. Nilsson, U. Waldenström (IVF Clinic, Falun Hospital, Falun); Norway — J. Hausken (Fertility Clinic, Haugesund Hospital, Haugesund); V. von During (Fertility Clinic, University Hospital, Trondheim); Denmark — A. Pinborg, A. Loft, A. Nyboe Andersen (Fertility Clinic, Rigshospital, Köbenhamn); K. Erb, P.E. Rasmussen (Fertility Clinic, University Hospital, Odense); A.L. Mikkelsen, S. Lindenberg (Fertility Clinic, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen); H. Ejdrup Braedkjer (Fertility Clinic, Hvidovre Hospital, Copenhagen).
- References
References
1
Bergh T ,Ericsson A ,Hillensjo T ,Nygren K-G ,Wennerholm U-B . Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilisation in Sweden 1982-1995: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 1999;354:1579-1585
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Gissler M ,Malin Silverio M ,Hemminki E . In-vitro fertilization pregnancies and perinatal health in Finland 1991-1993. Hum Reprod 1995;10:1856-1861
Web of Science | Medline3
Westergaard HB ,Johansen AM ,Erb K ,Andersen AN . Danish national in-vitro fertilization registry 1994 and 1995: a controlled study of births, malformations and cytogenetic findings. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1896-1902
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Schieve LA ,Meikle SF ,Ferre C ,Peterson HB ,Jeng G ,Wilcox LS . Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 2002;346:731-737
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline5
Helmerhorst FM ,Perquin DA ,Donker D ,Keirse MJ . Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ 2004;328:261-265
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Jackson RA ,Gibson KA ,Wu YW ,Croughan MS . Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:551-563
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Wennerholm UB ,Bergh C . Outcome of IVF pregnancies. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2004;15:27-57
CrossRef8
Stromberg B ,Dahlquist G ,Ericson A ,Finnstrom O ,Koster M ,Stjernqvist K . Neurological sequelae in children born after in-vitro fertilisation: a population-based study. Lancet 2002;359:461-465
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Ericson A ,Kallen B . Congenital malformations in infants born after IVF: a population-based study. Hum Reprod 2001;16:504-509
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
The National Board of Health and Welfare. Official statistics of Sweden. (Accessed November 3, 2004, at http://www.sos.se.)
11
Templeton A ,Morris JK . Reducing the risk of multiple births by transfer of two embryos after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 1998;339:573-577
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline12
Coetsier T ,Dhont M . Avoiding multiple pregnancies in in-vitro fertilization: who's afraid of single embryo transfer? Hum Reprod 1998;13:2663-2664
Web of Science | Medline13
Strandell A ,Bergh C ,Lundin K . Selection of patients suitable for one-embryo transfer reduces the rate of multiple births by half without impairment of overall birth rates. Hum Reprod 2000;15:2520-2525
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Gerris J ,De Neuborg D ,Mangelschots K ,Van Royen E ,Van de Meerssche M ,Valkenburg M . Prevention of twin pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2581-2587
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Martikainen H ,Tiitinen A ,Tomas C , et al. One versus two embryo transfer after IVF and ICSI: a randomized study. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1900-1903
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Steer CV ,Mills CL ,Tan SL ,Campbell S ,Edwards RG . The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod 1992;7:117-119
Web of Science | Medline17
Gardner DK ,Schoolcraft WB ,Wagley L ,Schlenker T ,Stevens J ,Hesla J . A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998;13:3434-3440
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Pocock SJ. Clinical trials: a practical approach. Chichester, England: John Wiley, 1983.
19
Van Royen E ,Mangelschots K ,De Neubourg D , et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2345-2349
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Gerris J ,De Neubourg D ,Mangelschots K , et al. Elective single day 3 embryo transfer halves the twinning rate without decrease in the ongoing pregnancy rate of an IVF/ICSI programme. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2626-2631
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
De Sutter P ,Van der Elst J ,Coetsier T ,Dhont M . Single embryo transfer and multiple pregnancy rate reduction in IVF/ICSI: a 5-year appraisal. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;6:464-469
CrossRef | Medline22
Vilska S ,Tiitinen A ,Hyden-Granskog C ,Hovatta O . Elective transfer of one embryo results in an acceptable pregnancy rate and eliminates the risk of multiple birth. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2392-2395
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Tiitinen A ,Unkila-Kallio L ,Halttunen M ,Hyden-Granskog C . Impact of elective single embryo transfer on the twin pregnancy rate. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1449-1453
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Soderstrom-Anttila V ,Vilska S ,Makinen S ,Foudila T ,Suikkari A-M . Elective single embryo transfer yields good delivery rates in oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1858-1863
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Nyboe-Andersen A ,Gianaroli L ,Nygren KG . Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2000: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2004;19:490-503
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2000 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1207-1220
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline27
Pinborg A ,Loft A ,Schmidt L ,Andersen AN . Attitudes of IVF/ICSI-twin mothers towards twins and single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2003;18:621-627
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Smeenk JMJ ,Verhaak CM ,Eugster A ,van Minnen A ,Zielhuis GA ,Braat DDM . The effect of anxiety and depression on the outcome of in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1420-1423
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline29
Tiitinen A ,Halttunen M ,Harkki P ,Vuoristo P ,Hyden-Granskog C . Elective single embryo transfer: the value of cryopreservation. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1140-1144
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (157)
Citing Articles
1
Kerri Marquard, Kelle Moley. 2012. Multiple Gestations and Assisted Reproductive Technology. , 60-66.
CrossRef2
Judy E. Stern, Timothy N. Hickman, Donna Kinzer, Alan S. Penzias, G. David Ball, William E. Gibbons. (2012) Can the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) be used to accurately report clinic total reproductive potential (TRP)?. Fertility and Sterility
CrossRef3
Liv Bente Romundstad. (2012) Number of embryos to transfer: better safe than sorry?. The Lancet
CrossRef4
(2011) Multiple gestation associated with infertility therapy: an American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility
CrossRef5
A.-S. Gremeau, F. Brugnon, Z. Bouraoui, R. Pekrishvili, L. Janny, J.-L. Pouly. (2011) Outcome and feasibility of elective single embryo transfer (eSET) policy for the first and second IVF/ICSI attempts. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
CrossRef6
(2011) Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility
CrossRef7
Rosheen Grady, Nika Alavi, Rachel Vale, Mohammad Khandwala, Sarah D. McDonald. (2011) Elective single embryo transfer and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertility and Sterility
CrossRef8
Dalia B. Rodríguez, Rosa Tur, Fulvia Mancini, Mónica Parriego, Ignacio Rodríguez, Buenaventura Coroleu, Pedro N. Barri. (2011) Elective single embryo transfer and cumulative pregnancy rate: five-year experience in a Southern European Country. Gynecological Endocrinology1-4
CrossRef9
R. Cabry-Goubet, E. Lourdel, M. Brzakowski, N. Urrutiaguer-Grenier, F. Brasseur, P. Demailly, A. Devaux, H. Copin, P. Merviel. (2011) Facteurs prédictifs de grossesses en cas de transfert de deux embryons au cours de tentatives « Top Quality ». Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité
CrossRef10
Yakoub Khalaf, Susan Bewley, Peter Braude. (2011) Reducing multiple pregnancies after assisted reproduction treatment: Québec says ‘Yes, we can!’. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 23:4, 407-410
CrossRef11
A. Sazonova, K. Kallen, A. Thurin-Kjellberg, U.-B. Wennerholm, C. Bergh. (2011) Factors affecting obstetric outcome of singletons born after IVF. Human Reproduction 26:10, 2878-2886
CrossRef12
Yaacoub Salame, Fabienne Devreker, Romain Imbert, Anne Delbaere, Nicolas Fontenelle, Yvon Englert. (2011) Contribution of cryopreservation in a mandatory SET policy: analysis of 5 years of application of law in an academic IVF center. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
CrossRef13
Ahmed Nasr. (2011) Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) for all patients?. Middle East Fertility Society Journal 16:3, 185-186
CrossRef14
Wei Wang, Xue-Hong Zhang, Wei-Hua Wang, Ya-Li Liu, Li-Hui Zhao, Shi-Long Xue, Ke-Hu Yang. (2011) The time interval between hCG priming and oocyte retrieval in ART program: a meta-analysis. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 28:10, 901-910
CrossRef15
Ingrid Kowalcek. (2011) Mehrlingselternschaft nach assistierter Reproduktion. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 123:15-16, 463-467
CrossRef16
GS Scotland, D McLernon, JJ Kurinczuk, P McNamee, K Harrild, H Lyall, M Rajkhowa, M Hamilton, S Bhattacharya. (2011) Minimising twins in in vitro fertilisation: a modelling study assessing the costs, consequences and cost-utility of elective single versus double embryo transfer over a 20-year time horizon. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 118:9, 1073-1083
CrossRef17
M. J. Wood, J. Mollison, K. Harrild, E. Ferguson, T. McKay, A. Srikantharajah, L. Bell, S. Bhattacharya. (2011) A pragmatic RCT of conventional versus increased concentration sucrose in freezing and thawing solutions for human embryos. Human Reproduction 26:8, 1987-1996
CrossRef18
A. A. A. Fiddelers, F. H. M. Nieman, J. C. M. Dumoulin, A. P. A. van Montfoort, J. A. Land, J. L. H. Evers, J. L. Severens, C. D. Dirksen. (2011) During IVF treatment patient preference shifts from singletons towards twins but only a few patients show an actual reversal of preference. Human Reproduction 26:8, 2092-2100
CrossRef19
INGUNN JONSDOTTIR, KERSTI LUNDIN, CHRISTINA BERGH. (2011) Double embryo transfer gives good pregnancy and live birth rates in poor responders with a modest increase in multiple birth rates: results from an observational study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 90:7, 761-766
CrossRef20
Inna Berin, Sarah T. McLellan, Eric A. Macklin, Thomas L. Toth, Diane L. Wright. (2011) Frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: clinical outcomes of single and double blastocyst transfers. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 28:7, 575-581
CrossRef21
Eric D. Levens, Michael J. Levy. (2011) Ethical application of Shared Risk programs in assisted reproductive technology. Fertility and Sterility 95:7, 2198-2199
CrossRef22
Jason G Bromer, Baris Ata, Meltem Seli, Charles J Lockwood, Emre Seli. (2011) Preterm deliveries that result from multiple pregnancies associated with assisted reproductive technologies in the USA: a cost analysis. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 23:3, 168-173
CrossRef23
F. Lamazou, E. Arbo, M. Grynberg, M.-C. Bourrier, R. Fanchin, H. Fernandez, R. Frydman, N. Achour-Frydman. (2011) L’impact des critères du élective single embryo transfer sur le taux de grossesses gémellaires dans la population française. Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 40:4, 323-328
CrossRef24
Pedro N. Barri, Buenaventura Coroleu, Elisabet Clua, Rosa Tur. (2011) Prevention of prematurity by single embryo transfer. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 39:3, 237-240
CrossRef25
L. Dessolle, T. Freour, C. Ravel, M. Jean, A. Colombel, E. Darai, P. Barriere. (2011) Predictive factors of healthy term birth after single blastocyst transfer. Human Reproduction 26:5, 1220-1226
CrossRef26
S. A. Roberts, L. McGowan, W. Mark Hirst, A. Vail, A. Rutherford, B. A. Lieberman, D. R. Brison, . (2011) Reducing the incidence of twins from IVF treatments: predictive modelling from a retrospective cohort. Human Reproduction 26:3, 569-575
CrossRef27
J. Ryan Martin, Jason G. Bromer, Denny Sakkas, Pasquale Patrizio. (2011) Insurance coverage and in vitro fertilization outcomes: a U.S. perspective. Fertility and Sterility 95:3, 964-969
CrossRef28
Anna-Karina Aaris Henningsen, Anja Pinborg, Øjvind Lidegaard, Christina Vestergaard, Julie Lyng Forman, Anders Nyboe Andersen. (2011) Perinatal outcome of singleton siblings born after assisted reproductive technology and spontaneous conception: Danish national sibling-cohort study. Fertility and Sterility 95:3, 959-963
CrossRef29
(2011) Multiple pregnancy following assisted reproduction. Human Fertility 14:1, 3-7
CrossRef30
A. Sazonova, K. Kallen, A. Thurin-Kjellberg, U.-B. Wennerholm, C. Bergh. (2011) Obstetric outcome after in vitro fertilization with single or double embryo transfer. Human Reproduction 26:2, 442-450
CrossRef31
Christophe Sifer, Nathalie Sermondade, Christophe Poncelet, Emna Hafhouf, Raphaël Porcher, Isabelle Cedrin-Durnerin, Brigitte Benzacken, Rachel Levy, Jean-Noël Hugues. (2011) Biological predictive criteria for clinical pregnancy after elective single embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility 95:1, 427-430
CrossRef32
Mary Ellen Pavone, Jennifer E. Hirshfeld-Cytron, Ralph R. Kazer. (2011) The Progressive Simplification of the Infertility Evaluation. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey 66:1, 31-41
CrossRef33
Dominic Stoop, Lisbet Van Landuyt, Etienne Van den Abbeel, Michel Camus, Greta Verheyen, Paul Devroey. (2011) Should a single blastocyst transfer policy be a clinical decision or should it depend on the embryological evaluation on day 3?. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 9:1, 60
CrossRef34
Brooke E. Friedman, Lynn B. Davis, Ruth B. Lathi, Lynn M. Westphal, Valerie L. Baker, Amin A. Milki. (2011) Age-Related Success with Elective Single versus Double Blastocyst Transfer. ISRN Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011, 1-6
CrossRef35
Mairead Black, Siladitya Bhattacharya. (2010) Epidemiology of multiple pregnancy and the effect of assisted conception. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 15:6, 306-312
CrossRef36
Karine Morcel, Vincent Lavoué, Alain Beuchée, Dominique Le Lannou, Patrice Poulain, Patrick Pladys. (2010) Perinatal morbidity and mortality in twin pregnancies with dichorionic placentas following assisted reproductive techniques or ovarian induction alone: a comparative study. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 153:2, 138-142
CrossRef37
Elisabet Clua, Rosa Tur, Buenaventura Coroleu, Montse Boada, Pere N. Barri, Anna Veiga. (2010) Analysis of factors associated with multiple pregnancy in an oocyte donation programme. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 21:5, 694-699
CrossRef38
M. P. Connolly, S. Hoorens, G. M. Chambers, . (2010) The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective. Human Reproduction Update 16:6, 603-613
CrossRef39
L. L. van Loendersloot, M. van Wely, J. Limpens, P. M. M. Bossuyt, S. Repping, F. van der Veen. (2010) Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update 16:6, 577-589
CrossRef40
Anja Pinborg, Anne Loft, Anna-Karina Aaris Henningsen, Steen Rasmussen, Anders Nyboe Andersen. (2010) Infant outcome of 957 singletons born after frozen embryo replacement: The Danish National Cohort Study 1995–2006. Fertility and Sterility 94:4, 1320-1327
CrossRef41
Emily S. Jungheim, Ginny L. Ryan, Eric D. Levens, Alexandra F. Cunningham, George A. Macones, Kenneth R. Carson, Angeline N. Beltsos, Randall R. Odem. (2010) Embryo transfer practices in the United States: a survey of clinics registered with the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertility and Sterility 94:4, 1432-1436
CrossRef42
Jaro Wex-Wechowski, Ahmed M. Abou-Setta, Sandy Kildegaard Nielsen, Richard Kennedy. (2010) HP-HMG versus rFSH in treatments combining fresh and frozen IVF cycles: success rates and economic evaluation. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 21:2, 166-178
CrossRef43
Koji Nakagawa, Yayoi Nishi, Rie Sugiyama, Yasushi Kuribayashi, Rikikazu Sugiyama, Masato Inoue. (2010) Elective single cleavage-stage embryo transfer need not result in lower pregnancy rates compared to double cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 36:4, 777-782
CrossRef44
Tarek A. Gelbaya, Ioanna Tsoumpou, Luciano G. Nardo. (2010) The likelihood of live birth and multiple birth after single versus double embryo transfer at the cleavage stage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertility and Sterility 94:3, 936-945
CrossRef45
Patricia Fauque, Pierre Jouannet, Céline Davy, Juliette Guibert, Vivian Viallon, Sylvie Epelboin, Jean-Marie Kunstmann, Catherine Patrat. (2010) Cumulative results including obstetrical and neonatal outcome of fresh and frozen-thawed cycles in elective single versus double fresh embryo transfers. Fertility and Sterility 94:3, 927-935
CrossRef46
Catharina Olivius, Christina Bergh. (2010) IVF: fewer complications with single-embryo transfer, but what about the live birth rates?. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 5:4, 389-391
CrossRef47
Nicole Hope, Luk Rombauts. (2010) Can an educational DVD improve the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer? A randomized controlled study. Fertility and Sterility 94:2, 489-495
CrossRef48
D. De Neubourg, C. Daels, M. Elseviers, K. Mangelschots, M. Vercruyssen, E. Van Royen. (2010) Cumulative live-birth delivery after IVF/ICSI since the progressive introduction of single-embryo transfer. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 20:6, 836-842
CrossRef49
Baris Ata, Emre Seli. (2010) Economics of assisted reproductive technologies. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 22:3, 183-188
CrossRef50
Wataru Sato, Jun Fukuda, Kyoko Kanamori, Kazuhiro Kawamura, Jin Kumagai, Hideya Kodama, Toshinobu Tanaka. (2010) Evaluation of possible criteria for elective single embryo transfer. Reproductive Medicine and Biology 9:2, 107-113
CrossRef51
Sirpa Vilska, Leila Unkila-Kallio. (2010) Mental health of parents of twins conceived via assisted reproductive technology. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 22:3, 220-226
CrossRef52
Christine M. Mullin, M. Elizabeth Fino, Sheeva Talebian, Lewis C. Krey, Frederick Licciardi, Jamie A. Grifo. (2010) Comparison of pregnancy outcomes in elective single blastocyst transfer versus double blastocyst transfer stratified by age. Fertility and Sterility 93:6, 1837-1843
CrossRef53
Mohammad Ali Karimzadeh, Shahnaz Ahmadi, Homa Oskouian, Elham Rahmani. (2010) Comparison of mild stimulation and conventional stimulation in ART outcome. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 281:4, 741-746
CrossRef54
Arno M. van Peperstraten, Rosella P.M.G. Hermens, Willianne L.D.M. Nelen, Peep F.M. Stalmeier, Alex M.M. Wetzels, Pettie H.M. Maas, Jan A.M. Kremer, Richard P.T.M. Grol. (2010) Deciding how many embryos to transfer after in vitro fertilisation: Development and pilot test of a decision aid. Patient Education and Counseling 78:1, 124-129
CrossRef55
D.A. Beyer, F. Amari, K. Diedrich, A. Schroeer. (2010) Methoden der Embryoselektion vor der Implantation. Der Gynäkologe 43:1, 9-14
CrossRef56
Maurizio Macaluso, Tracie J. Wright-Schnapp, Anjani Chandra, Robert Johnson, Catherine L. Satterwhite, Amy Pulver, Stuart M. Berman, Richard Y. Wang, Sherry L. Farr, Lori A. Pollack. (2010) A public health focus on infertility prevention, detection, and management. Fertility and Sterility 93:1, 16.e1-16.e10
CrossRef57
Robert J. Stillman, Kevin S. Richter, Nicole K. Banks, James R. Graham. (2009) Elective single embryo transfer: A 6-year progressive implementation of 784 single blastocyst transfers and the influence of payment method on patient choice. Fertility and Sterility 92:6, 1895-1906
CrossRef58
S. Bechoua, K. Astruc, S. Thouvenot, S. Girod, A. Chiron, C. Jimenez, P. Sagot. (2009) How to demonstrate that eSET does not compromise the likelihood of having a baby?. Human Reproduction 24:12, 3073-3081
CrossRef59
Thurin-Kjellberg, Ann, Olivius, Catharina, Bergh, Christina, . (2009) Cumulative Live-Birth Rates in a Trial of Single-Embryo or Double-Embryo Transfer. New England Journal of Medicine 361:18, 1812-1813
Full Text60
T. El-Toukhy, A. Kamal, E. Wharf, J. Grace, V. Bolton, Y. Khalaf, P. Braude. (2009) Reduction of the multiple pregnancy rate in a preimplantation genetic diagnosis programme after introduction of single blastocyst transfer and cryopreservation of blastocysts biopsied on Day 3. Human Reproduction 24:10, 2642-2648
CrossRef61
David H Edgar, Jerustin Karani, Debra A Gook. (2009) Increasing dehydration of human cleavage-stage embryos prior to slow cooling significantly increases cryosurvival. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 19:4, 521-525
CrossRef62
Ahmed Kassab, Luca Sabatini, Amanda Tozer, Ariel Zosmer, Magdy Mostafa, Talha Al-Shawaf. (2009) The correlation between basal serum follicle-stimulating hormone levels before embryo cryopreservation and the clinical outcome of frozen embryo transfers. Fertility and Sterility 92:4, 1269-1275
CrossRef63
Debra A. Gook, David H. Edgar. 2009. Factors Influencing the Clinical Efficiency of Oocyte Cryopreservation. , 209-220.
CrossRef64
Z. Veleva, P. Karinen, C. Tomas, J. S. Tapanainen, H. Martikainen. (2009) Elective single embryo transfer with cryopreservation improves the outcome and diminishes the costs of IVF/ICSI. Human Reproduction 24:7, 1632-1639
CrossRef65
G. Griesinger. (2009) Reproduktionsmedizin in Europa und Deutschland. Der Gynäkologe 42:7, 487-494
CrossRef66
Suliman Al-Fifi, Ali Al-Binali, Mesfer Al-Shahrani, Hajra Shafiq, Mohamad Bahar, Mona Almushait, Lukanle Sobandi, Mamdoh Eskandar. (2009) Congenital anomalies and other perinatal outcomes in ICSI vs. naturally conceived pregnancies: a comparative study. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 26:7, 377-381
CrossRef67
P. Devroey, B.C.J.M. Fauser, K. Diedrich, . (2009) Approaches to improve the diagnosis and management of infertility. Human Reproduction Update 15:4, 391-408
CrossRef68
Monica Kapoor, Lubna Pal. (2009) Epidemic of plurality and contributions of assisted reproductive technology therein. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics 151C:2, 128-135
CrossRef69
Zabeena Pandian, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Ozkan Ozturk, Gamal Serour, Allan Templeton, Zabeena Pandian. 2009. Number of embryos for transfer following in-vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. .
CrossRef70
Rikikazu Sugiyama, Koji Nakagawa, Yayoi Nishi, Rie Sugiyama, Kei Ezaki, Masato Inoue. (2009) The dilemma faced by patients who undergo single embryo transfer. Reproductive Medicine and Biology 8:1, 33-37
CrossRef71
F. Guerif, M. Lemseffer, R. Bidault, O. Gasnier, M.H. Saussereau, V. Cadoret, C. Jamet, D. Royere. (2009) Single Day 2 embryo versus blastocyst-stage transfer: a prospective study integrating fresh and frozen embryo transfers. Human Reproduction 24:5, 1051-1058
CrossRef72
R. Zimmermann. (2009) Risikoschwangerschaft – iatrogene Risiken. Der Gynäkologe 42:2, 111-115
CrossRef73
P. C. Ho. (2009) New frontiers of assisted reproductive technology (Chien Tien Hsu Memorial Lecture 2007). Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 35:1, 1-8
CrossRef74
Outi Hovatta, Enda McVeigh, Amir Lass, Roy Homburg. (2009) A large Northern European observational study of follitropin alpha filled-by-mass pre-filled pen. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18:4, 502-508
CrossRef75
Jan Gerris. (2009) Single-embryo transfer versus multiple-embryo transfer. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18, S63-S70
CrossRef76
Anick De Vos and, André Van Steirteghem. 2009. Gamete and Embryo Manipulation. , 759-776.
CrossRef77
Mark D. Hornstein, Catherine Racowsky. 2009. Assisted Reproduction. , 725-757.
CrossRef78
Emily S. Jungheim, Valerie S. Ratts, Aimee S. Chang, Kelle H. Moley, Susan E. Lanzendorf, Randall R. Odem. (2008) Encouraging patient-driven single-embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility 90:4, 1266-1268
CrossRef79
C. Staessen, W. Verpoest, P. Donoso, P. Haentjens, J. Van der Elst, I. Liebaers, P. Devroey. (2008) Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Human Reproduction 23:12, 2818-2825
CrossRef80
2008. Assisted conception. , 289-329.
CrossRef81
A.M. van Peperstraten, R.P.M.G. Hermens, W.L.D.M. Nelen, P.F.M. Stalmeier, G.J. Scheffer, R.P.T.M. Grol, J.A.M. Kremer. (2008) Perceived barriers to elective single embryo transfer among IVF professionals: a national survey. Human Reproduction 23:12, 2718-2723
CrossRef82
Ioannis Kosmas, Jossiane Van der Elst, Paul Devroey, Herman Tournaye. (2008) Elective single embryo transfer. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist 10:3, 163-169
CrossRef83
Andreas Schröer, Georg Griesinger, Klaus Diedrich. (2008) Arguments for elective single-embryo transfer. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 3:4, 475-480
CrossRef84
A.M. van Peperstraten, W.L.D.M. Nelen, R.P.M.G Hermens, L. Jansen, E. Scheenjes, D.D.M. Braat, R.P.T.M. Grol, J.A.M. Kremer. (2008) Why don't we perform elective single embryo transfer? A qualitative study among IVF patients and professionals. Human Reproduction 23:9, 2036-2042
CrossRef85
Aaron K. Styer, Diane L. Wright, Anne M. Wolkovich, Christine Veiga, Thomas L. Toth. (2008) Single-blastocyst transfer decreases twin gestation without affecting pregnancy outcome. Fertility and Sterility 89:6, 1702-1708
CrossRef86
Jason G Bromer, Emre Seli. (2008) Assessment of embryo viability in assisted reproductive technology: shortcomings of current approaches and the emerging role of metabolomics. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 20:3, 234-241
CrossRef87
Joseph P. Alukal, Dolores J. Lamb. (2008) Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) – What are the Risks?. Urologic Clinics of North America 35:2, 277-288
CrossRef88
B.C. Jacod, K.D. Lichtenbelt, G.H. Schuring-Blom, J.S.E. Laven, D. van Opstal, M.J.C. Eijkemans, N.S. Macklon, . (2008) Does confined placental mosaicism account for adverse perinatal outcomes in IVF pregnancies?. Human Reproduction 23:5, 1107-1112
CrossRef89
Anja Pinborg. (2008) The vanishing twin: prevalence and consequences for outcome after assisted reproduction. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 3:3, 369-377
CrossRef90
S Dixon, F Faghih Nasiri, WL Ledger, EA Lenton, A Duenas, P Sutcliffe, JB Chilcott. (2008) Cost-effectiveness analysis of different embryo transfer strategies in England. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 115:6, 758-766
CrossRef91
Gunilla Sydsjö, Marie Wadsby, Adam Sydsjö, Katarina Ekholm Selling. (2008) Relationship and parenthood in IVF couples with twin and singleton pregnancies compared with spontaneous singleton primiparous couples—a prospective 5-year follow-up study. Fertility and Sterility 89:3, 578-585
CrossRef92
Joseph P Alukal, Larry I Lipshultz. (2008) Safety of assisted reproduction, assessed by risk of abnormalities in children born after use of in vitro fertilization techniques. Nature Clinical Practice Urology 5:3, 140-150
CrossRef93
G. Griesinger, K. Diedrich. (2008) Prävention von Mehrlingsgeburten nach IVF in Deutschland. Der Gynäkologe 41:3, 200-203
CrossRef94
Y Khalaf, T El-Toukhy, A Coomarasamy, A Kamal, V Bolton, P Braude. (2008) Selective single blastocyst transfer reduces the multiple pregnancy rate and increases pregnancy rates: a pre- and postintervention study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 115:3, 385-390
CrossRef95
Lynn B. Davis, Ruth B. Lathi, Lynn M. Westphal, Amin A. Milki. (2008) Elective single blastocyst transfer in women older than 35. Fertility and Sterility 89:1, 230-231
CrossRef96
Mohamed Khaled Moustafa, Sheded Ashour Sheded, Mohamed Abd El Aziz Mousta. (2008) Elective single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer in assisted reproduction. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 17:1, 82-87
CrossRef97
C Olivius, K Lundin, C Bergh. (2008) Predictive factors for live birth in cryopreservation single embryo transfer cycles. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 17:5, 676-683
CrossRef98
Setsuko Yamamoto, Michiko Umeki, Mioko Kodoma, Teruhiro Hamano, Fujiyo Matsusita. (2007) Beneficial effect of long zona dissection on frozen-thawed blastocysts at a young age. Reproductive Medicine and Biology 6:4, 211-218
CrossRef99
W. Urdl, R. Felberbaum, W. Küpker. (2007) Problem der Mehrlingsschwangerschaft nach assistierter Reproduktion. Gynäkologische Endokrinologie 5:4, 212-218
CrossRef100
Christine C Skiadas, Catherine Racowsky. 2007. Development rate, cumulative scoring, and embryonic viability. , 101-122.
CrossRef101
Hiroaki Shibahara, Yuki Hirano, Takeshi Okajima, Kazuhiko Shimada, Kumiko Kikuchi, Tatsuya Suzuki, Satoru Takamizawa, Mitsuaki Suzuki. (2007) Establishment of criteria for elective single embryo transfer at day 2 or day 3 by analyzing cases with successful implantation of all embryos transferred. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 33:4, 501-505
CrossRef102
William Gibbons, David Grainger, Marcelle Cedars, Tarun Jain, Nancy Klein, Judy Stern. (2007) Continuous quality improvement and assisted reproductive technology multiple gestations: some progress, some answers, more questions. Fertility and Sterility 88:2, 301-304
CrossRef103
Eric S Surrey. (2007) Elective single embryo transfer: a North American perspective. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2:4, 399-401
CrossRef104
Alastair G Sutcliffe, Michael Ludwig. (2007) Outcome of assisted reproduction. The Lancet 370:9584, 351-359
CrossRef105
Valerie L Peddie, Maureen Porter. (2007) Limitations of infertility treatment: psychological, social and cultural. Therapy 4:3, 313-322
CrossRef106
Laura A Schieve. (2007) Multiple-gestation pregnancies after assisted reproductive technology treatment: population trends and future directions. Women's Health 3:3, 301-307
CrossRef107
Blair Johnson, Wendy Chavkin. (2007) Policy Efforts to Prevent ART-Related Preterm Birth. Maternal and Child Health Journal 11:3, 219-225
CrossRef108
Jerome H. Check, Donna Summers-Chase, Wei Yuan, Danya Horwath, Carrie Wilson. (2007) Effect of embryo quality on pregnancy outcome following single embryo transfer in women with a diminished egg reserve. Fertility and Sterility 87:4, 749-756
CrossRef109
Demián Glujovsky, Mousa I. Shamonki, Paul A. Bergh. (2007) Embryonic synergism may reduce pregnancy loss: a multivariate regression analysis. Fertility and Sterility 87:3, 509-514
CrossRef110
Esther MEW Heijnen, Marinus JC Eijkemans, Cora De Klerk, Suzanne Polinder, Nicole GM Beckers, Ellen R Klinkert, Frank J Broekmans, Jan Passchier, Egbert R Te Velde, Nick S Macklon, Bart CJM Fauser. (2007) A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. The Lancet 369:9563, 743-749
CrossRef111
Donna Dowling-Lacey, Estella Jones, Jacob Mayer, Silvina Bocca, Laurel Stadtmauer, Sergio Oehninger. (2007) Elective transfer of two embryos: Reduction of multiple gestations while maintaining high pregnancy rates. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 24:1, 11-15
CrossRef112
Masao Nomura, Akira Iwase, Kenji Furui, Takeshi Kitagawa, Yuka Matsui, Manami Yoshikawa, Fumitaka Kikkawa. (2007) Preferable correlation to blastocyst development and pregnancy rates with a new embryo grading system specific for day 3 embryos. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 24:1, 23-28
CrossRef113
Lars D. M. Ottosen, Ulrik Kesmodel, Johnny Hindkjær, Hans Jakob Ingerslev. (2007) Pregnancy prediction models and eSET criteria for IVF patients–do we need more information?. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 24:1, 29-36
CrossRef114
Christopher R. Newton, Joanna McBride, Valter Feyles, Francis Tekpetey, Stephen Power. (2007) Factors affecting patients’ attitudes toward single- and multiple-embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility 87:2, 269-278
CrossRef115
M.F.G. Verberg, N.S. Macklon, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, B.C.J.M. Fauser. (2007) ART: iatrogenic multiple pregnancy?. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 21:1, 129-143
CrossRef116
Anne-Maria Suikkari, Viveca Söderström-Anttila. (2007) In-vitro maturation of eggs: is it really useful?. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 21:1, 145-155
CrossRef117
Jane Halliday. (2007) Outcomes of IVF conceptions: are they different?. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 21:1, 67-81
CrossRef118
Van Voorhis, Bradley J., . (2007) In Vitro Fertilization. New England Journal of Medicine 356:4, 379-386
Full Text119
David H Edgar, Janell Archer, John McBain, Harold Bourne. (2007) Embryonic factors affecting outcome from single cryopreserved embryo transfer. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 14:6, 718-723
CrossRef120
GS Scotland, P McNamee, S Bhattacharya. (2007) Commentary: Is elective single embryo transfer a cost-effective alternative to double embryo transfer?. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 114:1, 5-7
CrossRef121
R. Barnes. (2007) In Vitro Fertilization with Single Blastocyst-Stage versus Single Cleavage-Stage Embryos. Yearbook of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health 2007, 171-172
CrossRef122
Kersti Lundin, Christina Bergh. (2007) Cumulative impact of adding frozen–thawed cycles to single versus double fresh embryo transfers. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 15:1, 76-82
CrossRef123
François Bissonnette, Jean Cohen, John Collins, Lisa Cowan, Sherry Dale, Sandra Dill, Calvin Greene, Mathias Gysler, Beverly Hanck, Edward Hughes, Arthur Leader, Sarah McDonald, Michael Marrin, Renée Martin, Jason Min, David Mortimer, Sharon Mortimer, Jocelyn Smith, Benjamin Tsang, Dean van Vugt, Albert Yuzpe. (2007) Incidence and complications of multiple gestation in Canada: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 14:6, 773-790
CrossRef124
Pieternel Steures, Jan Willem van der Steeg, Peter GA Hompes, Fulco van der Veen, Ben WJ Mol. (2007) Intrauterine insemination in The Netherlands. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 14:1, 110-116
CrossRef125
C Giorgetti, E Hans, P Terriou, J Salzmann, B Barry, V Chabert-Orsini, JM Chinchole, JP Franquebalme, E Glowaczower, M-C Sitri, M-C Thibault, R Roulier. (2007) Early cleavage: an additional predictor of high implantation rate following elective single embryo transfer. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 14:1, 85-91
CrossRef126
Viveca Söderström-Anttila, Sirpa Vilska. (2007) Five years of single embryo transfer with anonymous and non-anonymous oocyte donation. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 15:4, 428-433
CrossRef127
Christina Bergh. (2007) How to promote singletons. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 15, 22-27
CrossRef128
Celine Lawler, H. W. Gordon Baker, David H. Edgar. (2007) Relationships between timing of syngamy, female age and implantation potential in human in
vitro -fertilised oocytes. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 19:3, 482
CrossRef129
RJ Norman, M Davies, J Wang, M Lane, Robert Norman. (2006) Prevention of multiple gestation in IVF: Introduction to Theme. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 46:s1, S14-S16
CrossRef130
Sarah E. Little, Jennifer Ratcliffe, Aaron B. Caughey. (2006) Cost of Transferring One Through Five Embryos Per In Vitro Fertilization Cycle From Various Payor Perspectives. Obstetrics & Gynecology 108:3, Part 1, 593-601
CrossRef131
Tsung-Hsien Lee, Chin-Der Chen, Yi-Yi Tsai, Li-Jung Chang, Hong-Nerng Ho, Yu-Shih Yang. (2006) Embryo quality is more important for younger women whereas age is more important for older women with regard to in vitro fertilization outcome and multiple pregnancy. Fertility and Sterility 86:1, 64-69
CrossRef132
Linda G. Leonard, Jane Denton. (2006) Preparation for parenting multiple birth children. Early Human Development 82:6, 371-378
CrossRef133
Sirpa Soini, Dolores Ibarreta, Violetta Anastasiadou, Ségolène Aymé, Suzanne Braga, Martina Cornel, Domenico A Coviello, Gerry Evers-Kiebooms, Joep Geraedts, Luca Gianaroli, Joyce Harper, György Kosztolanyi, Kersti Lundin, Emilio Rodrigues-Cerezo, Karen Sermon, Jorge Sequeiros, Lisbeth Tranebjaerg, Ian D Young. (2006) The interface between assisted reproductive technologies and genetics: technical, social, ethical and legal issues. European Journal of Human Genetics 14:5, 588-645
CrossRef134
Schieve, Laura A., . (2006) The Promise of Single-Embryo Transfer. New England Journal of Medicine 354:11, 1190-1193
Full Text135
Papanikolaou, Evangelos G., Camus, Michel, Kolibianakis, Efstratios M., Van Landuyt, Lisbet, Van Steirteghem, Andre, Devroey, Paul, . (2006) In Vitro Fertilization with Single Blastocyst-Stage versus Single Cleavage-Stage Embryos. New England Journal of Medicine 354:11, 1139-1146
Full Text136
Tanja Krones, Elke Neuwohner, Susan Ansari, Thomas Wissner, Gerd Richter. (2006) Kinderwunsch und Wunschkinder. Ethik in der Medizin 18:1, 51-62
CrossRef137
Eric Flisser, Frederick Licciardi. (2006) One at a time. Fertility and Sterility 85:3, 555-558
CrossRef138
Andrea P. MacKay, Cynthia J. Berg, Jeffrey C. King, Catherine Duran, Jeani Chang. (2006) Pregnancy-Related Mortality Among Women With Multifetal Pregnancies. Obstetrics & Gynecology 107:3, 563-568
CrossRef139
Tarek El-Toukhy, Yacoub Khalaf, Peter Braude. (2006) IVF results: Optimize not maximize. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 194:2, 322-331
CrossRef140
Matts Wikland, Jean-Noë Hugues, Colin Howles. (2006) Improving the consistency of ovarian stimulation: follitropin alfa filled-by-mass. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 12:6, 663-668
CrossRef141
T Krones, E Neuwohner, K Bock, K Manolopoulos, HR Tinneberg, G Richter. (2006) Attitudes of patients, healthcare professionals and ethicists towards embryonic stem cell research and donation of gametes and embryos in Germany. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 13:5, 607-617
CrossRef142
Dominique Le Lannou, Jean-François Griveau, Marie-Christine Laurent, Annie Gueho, Elisabeth Veron, Karine Morcel. (2006) Contribution of embryo cryopreservation to elective single embryo transfer in IVF–ICSI. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 13:3, 368-375
CrossRef143
EMEW Heijnen, ER Klinkert, APE Schmoutziguer, MJC Eijkemans, ER te Velde, FJM Broekmans. (2006) Prevention of multiple pregnancies after IVF in women 38 and older: a randomized study. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 13:3, 386-393
CrossRef144
Bradley J. Van Voorhis. (2006) Outcomes From Assisted Reproductive Technology. Obstetrics & Gynecology 107:1, 183-200
CrossRef145
Jean Cohen. (2006) Embryo transfer: one or two?. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 12:5, 644-645
CrossRef146
L Van Landuyt, G Verheyen, H Tournaye, M Camus, P Devroey, A Van Steirteghem. (2006) New Belgian embryo transfer policy leads to sharp decrease in multiple pregnancy rate. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 13:6, 765-771
CrossRef147
P Poikkeus, L Unkila-Kallio, S Vilska, L Repokari, R-L Punamäki, A Aitokallio-Tallberg, J Sinkkonen, F Almqvist, M Tulppala, A Tiitinen. (2006) Impact of infertility characteristics and treatment modalities on singleton pregnancies after assisted reproduction. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 13:1, 135-144
CrossRef148
M DREWS. (2006) Elective Single-Embryo Transfer Versus Double-Embryo Transfer in In Vitro FertilizationThurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjö T, et al (Sahlgrenska Univ, Göteborg, Sweden; Haugesund Hosp, Norway; Carlanderska Hosp, Göteborg, Sweden; et al) N Engl J Med 351:2392–2402, 2004§. Yearbook of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health 2006, 195-199
CrossRef149
Sirpa Vilska. (2005) Prevention of multiple pregnancies in assisted reproduction. European Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1:3, 177-183
CrossRef150
Evert J.P. van Santbrink, Marinus J. Eijkemans, Joop S.E. Laven, Bart C.J.M. Fauser. (2005) Patient-tailored conventional ovulation induction algorithms in anovulatory infertility. Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism 16:8, 381-389
CrossRef151
Gary S. Nakhuda, Mark V. Sauer. (2005) Addressing the Growing Problem of Multiple Gestations Created by Assisted Reproductive Therapies. Seminars in Perinatology 29:5, 355-362
CrossRef152
Hartmut Kreß. (2005) Kultivierung von Embryonen und Single-Embryo-Transfer. Ethik in der Medizin 17:3, 234-240
CrossRef153
Karl-Gosta Nygren, Per Olof Janson. (2005) The Nordic Fertility Society. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 84:5, 411-411
CrossRef154
PE Levi Setti, M Cavagna, E Albani, G Morreale, PV Novara, A Cesana, V Parini. (2005) Outcome of assisted reproductive technologies after different embryo transfer strategies. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 11:1, 64-70
CrossRef155
Ariel Hourvitz, Shai Pri-paz, Jeoshuah Dor, Daniel S Seidman. (2005) Neonatal and obstetric outcome of pregnancies conceived by ICSI or IVF. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 11:4, 469-475
CrossRef156
Davis, Owen K., . (2004) Elective Single-Embryo Transfer — Has Its Time Arrived?. New England Journal of Medicine 351:23, 2440-2442
Full Text157
Zabeena Pandian, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Ozkan Ozturk, Gamal Serour, Allan Templeton, Zabeena Pandian. 2004. Number of embryos for transfer following in-vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. .
CrossRef
