Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:7868692rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0015914lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7868692lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0021107lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7868692lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1521828lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7868692lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0036496lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:issue11lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:dateCreated1995-3-30lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:abstractTextIt has been suggested that seasonal variation in endometrial receptivity may occur in women, which could affect the likely success of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. We therefore studied implantation rates (fetal sacs as a proportion of embryos transferred) as an indirect index of receptivity in a narrowly defined population of women under 40 years old with normal ovulatory cycles and normal uterus and men with normal sperm function. A total of 577 cycles of IVF treatment were undertaken using a standard protocol of pituitary desensitization and ovarian stimulation during the 3 years 1990-1992. Results were compared between calendar months and 3-month seasons. The overall implantation rate was 14.9% of embryos, and the clinical pregnancy rate was 30.3% of cycles reaching egg collection. There were no significant differences in the monthly rates of eggs collected, fertilization and cleavage, or embryos transferred. Implantation rates varied to a greater extent but analysis of variance showed no seasonal variation. These findings do not support a seasonal variation in ovarian responsiveness or endometrial receptivity when stimulated for IVF treatment, but larger studies are needed for firm conclusions to be drawn.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:monthNovlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:issn0268-1161lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HullM GMGlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:authorpubmed-author:FlemingCClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HughesA OAOlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:authorpubmed-author:NibiSSlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:volume9lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:pagination2164-6lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7868692-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7868692-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7868692-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7868692-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7868692-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7868692-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7868692-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7868692-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:7868692-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:year1994lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:articleTitleApparent lack of seasonal variation in implantation rates after in-vitro fertilization.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:affiliationUniversity of Bristol, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Michael's Hospital, UK.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:7868692pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed