To the Editor:
I was encouraged to read the article by Vayena et al, which justly addressed the needs of women experiencing infertility in developing countries (1). What is not clear is whether the authors are truly concerned with fairly evaluating “innovative approaches in treatment” (1) or whether they are simply one-sided advocates for assisted reproductive technology (ART). Read the rest of this entry »
I have some real concerns about the implications and conclusions drawn from the study of Domar et al. (1).
This study explores the effects of one protocol on IVF treatment. The study was indeed attempting to make sure that this was as close to the same protocol as used in the 2002 study. Read the rest of this entry »
Johnson et al’s (1) efforts to rescue and utilize immature oocytes generated during ovarian stimulation cycles which would otherwise be wasted are commendable. This author’s experience in a similar endeavor (2) suggests that ovarian stimulation regimes may generate approximately 20% immature oocytes (1, 2), which is a significant loss if efforts are not made to rescue and utilize them. Read the rest of this entry »
To the Editor:
Sauer et al. (1) reported, in a recent Fertility and Sterility issue, 10 years’ experience of an ICSI program in 181 HIV-serodiscordant couples. One hundred three deliveries were reported. It’s noteworthy that the multiple pregnancy (MP) rate was 41%, and 43% of infants were born preterm. Twenty-one infants weighed less than 1500 grams. No female HIV-seroconversions occurred. Read the rest of this entry »
