Skip Navigation

Human Reproduction 2008 23(7):1475; doi:10.1093/humrep/den233
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in Hum. Reprod.
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Van Steirteghem, A.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Van Steirteghem, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Editor's Choice

André Van Steirteghem, Editor-in-Chief

vansteirteghema@humanreproduction.co.uk

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is currently one of the most controversial issues in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). The question to be answered is whether an infertile couple has a significantly better chance of having a child when transfer is done using embryo(s) that have been screened for aneuploidy in comparison to those that have not. In . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in Hum. Reprod.:

What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? Experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy
Robert P.S. Jansen, Mark C. Bowman, Kylie A. de Boer, Don A. Leigh, Devora B. Lieberman, and Steven J. McArthur
Hum. Reprod. 2008 23: 1476-1478. [Abstract] [Full Text]  

Embryonic staging using a 3D virtual reality system
C.M. Verwoerd-Dikkeboom, A.H.J. Koning, P.J. van der Spek, N. Exalto, and E.A.P. Steegers
Hum. Reprod. 2008 23: 1479-1484. [Abstract] [Full Text]  

Day 4 embryo selection is equal to Day 5 using a new embryo scoring system validated in single embryo transfers
Deanne Feil, Richard C. Henshaw, and Michelle Lane
Hum. Reprod. 2008 23: 1505-1510. [Abstract] [Full Text]  

A series of monozygotic twins discordant for ovarian failure: ovary transplantation (cortical versus microvascular) and cryopreservation
S.J. Silber, M. DeRosa, J. Pineda, K. Lenahan, D. Grenia, K. Gorman, and R.G. Gosden
Hum. Reprod. 2008 23: 1531-1537. [Abstract] [Full Text]  

Prenatal testing among women pregnant after assisted reproductive techniques in Denmark 1995–2000: a national cohort study
A.C. Gjerris, A. Loft, A. Pinborg, M. Christiansen, and A. Tabor
Hum. Reprod. 2008 23: 1545-1552. [Abstract] [Full Text]  

Serum uric acid concentration as non-classic cardiovascular risk factor in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: effect of treatment with ethinyl-estradiol plus cyproterone acetate versus metformin
Manuel Luque-Ramírez, Francisco Álvarez-Blasco, Miguel Giovanni Uriol Rivera, and Héctor F. Escobar-Morreale
Hum. Reprod. 2008 23: 1594-1601. [Abstract] [Full Text]  

Age-specific success rate for women undertaking their first assisted reproduction technology treatment using their own oocytes in Australia, 2002–2005
Y.A. Wang, D. Healy, D. Black, and E.A. Sullivan
Hum. Reprod. 2008 23: 1633-1638. [Abstract] [Full Text]  

Success rates and cost of a live birth following fresh assisted reproduction treatment in women aged 45 years and older, Australia 2002–2004
Elizabeth Sullivan, Yueping Wang, Michael Chapman, and Georgina Chambers
Hum. Reprod. 2008 23: 1639-1643. [Abstract] [Full Text]