Programming the endometrium for deferred transfer of cryopreserved embryos: hormone replacement versus modified natural cycles Eva R. Groenewoud, M.D., Ph.D., Bernard J. Cohlen, M.D., Ph.D., Nicholas S. Macklon, M.D., Ph.D. Fertility and Sterility Volume 109, Issue 5, Pages 768-774 (May 2018) DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.135 Copyright © 2018 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions
Figure 1 Rising proportion in ETs in frozen–thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles compared with fresh IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in the United States between 2005 and 2014 (data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Fertility and Sterility 2018 109, 768-774DOI: (10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.135) Copyright © 2018 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions
Figure 2 Updated meta-analyses comparing live birth NC-FET vs. AC-FET. Fertility and Sterility 2018 109, 768-774DOI: (10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.135) Copyright © 2018 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions
Figure 3 Summary, NC-FET vs. AC-FET. Fertility and Sterility 2018 109, 768-774DOI: (10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.135) Copyright © 2018 American Society for Reproductive Medicine Terms and Conditions