Poor Response to Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
prediction of stimulation response and in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 1988, 50(2):298–307 (Level III). Djerassi A, Coutifaris C, West V A, Asa S L, et al. Gonadotroph adenoma in a premenopausal woman secreting follicle-stimulating hormone and causing ovarian hyperstimulation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1995, 80:591–4 (Level III). Scott R T Jr, Hofmann G E, Oehninger S, Muasher S J. Intercycle variability of day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone levels and its effect on stimulation quality in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1990, 54(2):297– 302 (Level II-2). Kwee J, Schats R, McDonnell J, Lambalk C B, Schoemaker J. Intercycle variability of ovarian reserve tests: results of a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 2004, 19(3):590–5 (Level I). Roberts J E, Spandorfer S, Fasouliotis S J, Kashyap S, Rosenwaks Z. Taking a basal follicle-stimulating hormone history is essential before initiating in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2005, 83(1):37–41 (Level II-3). Choi J H, Gilks C B, Auersperg N, Leung P C. Immunolocalization of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-I, GnRH-II, and type I GnRH receptor during follicular development in the human ovary. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006, 91(11):4562–70. Seifer D, Lambert-Messerlian G, Hogan J, Gardiner A, Blazar A, Berk C. Day 3 serum inhibin-B is predictive of assisted reproductive technologies outcome. Fertil Steril 1997, 67(1):110–4 (Level III). Visser J, de Jong F, Laven J, Themmen A. Anti-Mullerian hormone: a new marker for ovarian function. Reproduction 2006, 131:1–9 (Level III). Hehenkamp W, Looman C, Themmen A, de Jong F, Te Velde E, Broekmans F. Anti-Mullerian hormone levels in the spontaneous menstrual cycle do not show substantial fluctuation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006, 91(10):4057–63 (Level III). Fanchin R, Taieb J, Lozano D H, Ducot B, Frydman R, Bouyer J. High reproducibility of serum anti-Mullerian hormone measurements suggests a multi-staged follicular secretion and strengthens its role in the assessment of ovarian follicular status. Hum Reprod 2005, 20(4):923–7 (Level II-3). Streuli I, Fraisse T, Pillet C, Ibecheole V, Bischof P, de Ziegler D. Serum antimüllerian hormone levels remain stable throughout the menstrual cycle and after oral or vaginal administration of synthetic sex steroids. Fertil Steril 2007. Accessed on the web at www.fertster.org on 1/20/2007 (Level I). Mohamed K, Davies W, Lashen H. Antimüllerian hormone and pituitary gland activity after prolonged down-regulation with goserelin acetate. Fertil Steril 2006, 85(5):1515–17 (Level III). Fanchin R, Louafi N, Mendez Lozano D, Frydman N, Frydman R, Taieb J. Per-follicle measurements indicate that anti-Mullerian hormone secretion is modulated by the extent of follicular development and luteinization and may reflect qualitatively the ovarian follicular status. Fertil Steril 2005, 84(1):167–73 (Level II-2). Fanchin R, Schonäuer L M, Righini C, Frydman N, Frydman R, Taieb J. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone dynamics during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum Reprod 2003, 18(2):328–32 (Level III).
71 87. de Vet A, Laven JS, de Jong FH, Themmen AP, Fauser BC. Antimüllerian hormone serum levels: a putative marker for ovarian aging. Fertil Steril 2002, 77(2):357– 62 (Level II-2). 88. Fanchin R, Schonäuer LM, Righini C, Guibourdenche J, Frydman R, Taieb J. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone is more strongly related to ovarian follicular status than serum inhibin B, estradiol, FSH and LH on day 3. Hum Reprod 2003, 18(2):323–7 (Level II-3). 89. van Rooij I, Broekmans F, te Velde E, et al. Serum antiMüllerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod 2002, 17(12):3065–71 (Level II-2). 90. Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles – implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod 2007, 22(9):2414–21 (Level II-3). 91. Kwee J, Schats R, McDonnell J, Themmen A, de Jong F, Lambalk C. Evaluation of anti-Mullerian hormone as a test for the prediction of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 2007. Accessed on the web at www.fertsteril.org on 1/20/2008 (Level I). 92. Lekamge DN, Barry M, Kolo M, Lane M, Gilchrist RB, Tremellen KP. Anti-Müllerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online 2007, 14(5):602–10 (Level II-2). 93. Tremellen KP, Kolo M, Gilmore A, Lekamge DN. Antimullerian hormone as a marker of ovarian reserve. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2005, 45(1):20–4 (Level II-2). 94. Muttukrishna S, McGarrigle H, Wakim R, Khadum I, Ranieri DM, Serhal P. Antral follicle count, anti-mullerian hormone and inhibin B: predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology? BJOG 2005, 112(10):1384–90 (Level II-3). 95. Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Moser M, Shebl O, SchreierLechner E, Tews G. Basal level antimullerian hormone is associated with oocyte quality in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 2006, 21:2022–6. 96. Silberstein T, MacLaughlin DT, Shai I, Trimarchi JR, Lambert-Messerlian G, Seifer DB. mullerian inhibitory substance levels at the time of hCG administration in IVF cycles predict both ovarian reserve and embryo morphology. Hum Reprod 2006, 21:159–63. 97. Smeenk JM, Sweep FC, Zielhuis GA, Kremer JA, Thomas CM, Braat DD. Antimullerian hormone predicts ovarian responsiveness, but not embryo quality or pregnancy, after in vitro fertilization or intracyoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2007, 87:223–6. 98. Navot D, Rosenwaks Z, Margalioth EJ. Prognostic assessment of female fecundity. Lancet 1987, 2(8560):645–7 (Level II-3). 99. Kwee J, Elting MW, Schats R, Bezemer PD, Lambalk CB, Schoemaker J. Comparison of endocrine tests with respect to their predictive value on the outcome of ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF treatment: results of a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 2003, 18(7):1422–7 (Level I). 100. Fanchin R, de Ziegler D, Olivennes F, Taieb J, Dzik A, Frydman R. Exogenous follicle stimulating hormone ovarian reserve test (EFORT): a simple and reliable screening test for detecting “poor responders” in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1994, 9(9):1607–11 (Level III).