PubMed · 16213875
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Shayne M Plosker. 2005. Refining embryo transfer.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.06.007
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: To compare pregnancy rates of embryo transfers performed by a patient's own IVF physician to pregnancy rates of embryo transfers performed by other physicians on the IVF team. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study; University hospital. RESULTS: A total of 3029 embryo transfers were included. 434 patients (14%) had an embryo transfer by their own IVF physician. There was no difference in pregnancy rates comparing patients who had embryos transferred by a different physician than their own IVF physician when all cycle attempts were analyzed [Odds ratio (OR) 1.1; Confidence interval (CI) 0.9-1.4]. There was no significant difference between the groups' population characteristics. A subset analysis of 1st cycle only embryo transfers (n=1416) also revealed no difference in pregnancy rates [OR 1.1; CI 0.8-1.5]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients can be reassured that their chances of pregnancy are the same whether their embryo transfer is performed by their own physician or another physician in the practice.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
AIMS: To assess the effect of assisted conception (AC) on retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and ROP screening. Follow-up to the study by McKibbin et al. METHODS: Retrospective study utilising computerised databases of ROP screening, live births, AC and multiple births between 1st April 2000 and 31st August 2003 at St James's Hospital (SJUH) Leeds. chi(2) tests of significance were used. RESULTS: ROP screening was undertaken in 11/265 (4.2%) of AC births versus 1.6% of all SJUH births. This is significantly less than the 20.3% of AC babies screened in McKibbin et al study (P=<0.01). There was no ROP detected in the 11 AC babies. Of all AC births, 36.9% were one of twins and 1.5% from triplet births compared to 46.0% one of twins and 18.6% one of triplets in McKibbin's study. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of AC babies requiring ROP screening has fallen since McKibbin et al study which was performed between August 1991 and December 1994. This appears to be at least partially due to the reduced multiple birth rates. This reduction in the multiple birth rates follows evidence that reducing the number of embryos transferred does not reduce the number of couples taking home a baby and Human Fertility and Embryology Association guidelines recommending 'no more than two embryos should be transferred in an IVF cycle'. Changes in clinical practice at SJUH have significantly reduced the likelihood of AC babies requiring ROP screening and developing ROP.