Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Assist Reprod Genet ; 40(11): 2619-2626, 2023 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37715874

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This study assessed the visibility of embryologists on fertility clinic websites among Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) member clinics. METHODS: During a 1-month interval (March 2022), all Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) member fertility clinic websites were evaluated. The professional representation of the primary care team was examined including specialties, the presence of headshots, and biographies. RESULTS: A total of 446 fertility clinic websites were scanned in the search. The embryology team has the least common professional identification by their names (53.58%) compared to gynecology clinicians (96.21%, p < 0.001) and nurses (55.58%, p < 0.001). This trend also applies to other types of professional identifiers, such as headshots and biographies. Professional headshots of embryologists (50.34%) were less prominent than those of gynecology clinicians (93.51%, p < 0.001). A similar trend was observed in the biographies of the embryology team (47.20%) compared to gynecology clinicians (95.08%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The present study revealed that embryologists have low professional visibility on fertility clinic websites. Fertility clinics may prioritize enhancing the online visibility of their embryology laboratory team. This approach could potentially enhance the recognition of their team, foster transparency, and provide accessible information about the skills and expertise of healthcare professionals involved in the treatment process.


Subject(s)
Fertility Clinics , Gynecology , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted , Internet
2.
Arch Gynecol Obstet ; 308(2): 341-350, 2023 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35943567

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal phase support in a frozen embryo transfer. DESIGN: Systematic review. PATIENTS: Women undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET). INTERVENTIONS: We conducted an extensive database search of Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Trials Register using relevant keywords and their combinations to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the routes (i.e., oral, vaginal, intramuscular) of progesterone administration for luteal phase support (LPS) in artificial FET. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage. RESULTS: Four RCTs with 3245 participants undergoing artificial endometrial preparation (EP) cycles during FET were found to be eligible. Four trials compared vaginal progesterone with intramuscular progesterone and two trials compared vaginal progesterone with oral progesterone. One study favored of vaginal versus oral progesterone for clinical pregnancy rates (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.92) and other study favored intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.21-1.76) and live birth rates (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.28-2.05). Tabulation of overall evidence strength assessment showed low-quality evidence on the basis that for each outcome-comparison pair, there were deficiencies in either directness of outcome measurement or study quality. CONCLUSION: There was little consensus and evidence was heterogeneous on the optimal route of administration of progesterone for LPS during FET in artificial EP cycles. This warrants more trials, indirect comparisons, and network meta-analyses. PROPERO NO: CRD42021251017.


Subject(s)
Luteal Phase , Progesterone , Pregnancy , Female , Humans , Lipopolysaccharides , Embryo Transfer , Pregnancy Rate
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...