Publication
Should We Continue to Measure Endometrial Thickness in Modern-Day Medicine? The Effect on Live Birth Rates and Birth Weight
| dc.contributor.author | Costa Ribeiro, V | |
| dc.contributor.author | Santos-Ribeiro, S | |
| dc.contributor.author | De Munck, N | |
| dc.contributor.author | Drakopoulos, P | |
| dc.contributor.author | Polyzos, N | |
| dc.contributor.author | Schutyser, V | |
| dc.contributor.author | Verheyen, G | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tournaye, H | |
| dc.contributor.author | Blockeel, C | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-04-13T15:46:37Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-04-13T15:46:37Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2018-04 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The evaluation of endometrial thickness (EMT) is still part of standard cycle monitoring during IVF, despite the lack of robust evidence of any value of this measurement to predict little revalidation in contemporary medical practice; other tools, however, such as endocrine profile monitoring, have become increasingly popular. The aim of this study was to reassess whether EMT affects the outcome of a fresh embryo transfer in modern-day medicine, using a retrospective, single-centre cohort of 3350 IVF cycles (2827 women) carried out between 2010 and 2014. In the multivariate regression analysis, EMT was non-linearly associated with live birth, with live birth rates being the lowest with an EMT less than 7.0 mm (21.6%; P < 0.001) and then between 7.0 mm and 9.0 mm (30.2%; P = 0.008). An EMT less than 7.0 mm was also associated with a decrease in neonatal birthweight z-scores (-0.40; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12). In conclusion, these results reaffirm the use of EMT as a potential prognostic tool for live birth rates and neonatal birthweight in contemporary IVF, namely when considered together with other ovarian stimulation monitoring methods, such as the late-follicular endocrine profile. | pt_PT |
| dc.description.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.citation | Reprod Biomed Online. 2018 Apr;36(4):416-426. | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.12.016 | pt_PT |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3641 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | pt_PT |
| dc.peerreviewed | yes | pt_PT |
| dc.publisher | Elsevier | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Adult | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Birth Weight | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Endometrium | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Female | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Fertilization in Vitro | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Humans | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Ovulation Induction | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Pregnancy | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Pregnancy Rate | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Prognosis | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Retrospective Studies | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Ultrasonography, Prenatal | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Birth Rate | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | Live Birth | pt_PT |
| dc.subject | MAC OBS | pt_PT |
| dc.title | Should We Continue to Measure Endometrial Thickness in Modern-Day Medicine? The Effect on Live Birth Rates and Birth Weight | pt_PT |
| dc.type | journal article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| oaire.citation.endPage | 426 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.issue | 4 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.startPage | 416 | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.title | Reproductive Biomedicine Online | pt_PT |
| oaire.citation.volume | 36 | pt_PT |
| rcaap.rights | openAccess | pt_PT |
| rcaap.type | article | pt_PT |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1