Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Personalized versus standard frozen-thawed embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate whether personalized embryo transfer (pET) protocol guided by an endometrial receptivity array (ERA) can improve clinical outcomes of assisted reproduction.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library for studies in which analytical comparisons of outcomes of pET and standard embryo transfer (sET) groups were undertaken. The references to the included studies were also manually searched. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and the secondary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR), human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) positivity, biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR), miscarriage rate (MR), implantation rate (IR), and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR).

Results

Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis, including one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and nine cohort studies. We observed no significant difference in the primary outcome of CPR between the pET and sET groups in unselected patients (RR = 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87–1.30; P = 0.53; I2 = 89%). In terms of secondary outcomes, we likewise noted no significant differences between the groups. Further subgroup analyses indicated that the pET protocol not only significantly reduced the MR for poor-prognosis patients, but it also reduced the CPR in donor cycles, elevated the BPR for good-prognosis patients, non-preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), and programmed cycles, and decreased the proportion of women showing HCG positivity in non-PGT cycles.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis revealed that ERA appears to possess limited guidance in embryo transfer. More high-quality RCTs are therefore needed to investigate the clinical validity and feasibility of ERA in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Teh WT, McBain J, Rogers P. What is the contribution of embryo-endometrial asynchrony to implantation failure? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(11):1419–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0773-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Dahdouh EM. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a review of the evidence. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137(3):528–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000004295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lessey BA, Young SL. What exactly is endometrial receptivity? Fertil Steril. 2019;111(4):611–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.02.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Franasiak JM, Ruiz-Alonso M, Scott RT, Simón C. Both slowly developing embryos and a variable pace of luteal endometrial progression may conspire to prevent normal birth in spite of a capable embryo. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(4):861–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Craciunas L, Gallos I, Chu J, Bourne T, Quenby S, Brosens JJ, et al. Conventional and modern markers of endometrial receptivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25(2):202–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmy044.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bosteels J, van Wessel S, Weyers S, Broekmans FJ, D’Hooghe TM, Bongers MY, et al. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;12(12):Cd009461. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Díaz-Gimeno P, Horcajadas JA, Martínez-Conejero JA, Esteban FJ, Alamá P, Pellicer A, et al. A genomic diagnostic tool for human endometrial receptivity based on the transcriptomic signature. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(1):50–60, 60.e51–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.063.

  8. Cozzolino M, Diaz-Gimeno P, Pellicer A, Garrido N. Evaluation of the endometrial receptivity assay and the preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy in overcoming recurrent implantation failure. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(12):2989–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01948-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bergin K, Eliner Y, Duvall DW Jr, Roger S, Elguero S, Penzias AS, et al. The use of propensity score matching to assess the benefit of the endometrial receptivity analysis in frozen embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(2):396–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.03.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Riestenberg C, Kroener L, Quinn M, Ching K, Ambartsumyan G. Routine endometrial receptivity array in first embryo transfer cycles does not improve live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(4):1001–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.140.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cozzolino M, Diáz-Gimeno P, Pellicer A, Garrido N. Use of the endometrial receptivity array to guide personalized embryo transfer after a failed transfer attempt was associated with a lower cumulative and per transfer live birth rate during donor and autologous cycles. Fertil Steril. 2022;118(4):724–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.07.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Simón C, Gómez C, Cabanillas S, Vladimirov I, Castillón G, Giles J, et al. A 5-year multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing personalized, frozen and fresh blastocyst transfer in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41(3):402–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.06.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jia Y, Sha Y, Qiu Z, Guo Y, Tan A, Huang Y, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) to guide personalized embryo transfer with conventional frozen embryo transfer in 281 Chinese women with recurrent implantation failure. Med Sci Monit. 2022;28:e935634. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.935634.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rose-Reneau Z, Riggs RN, Anderson DK. Endometrial receptivity testing and adjustment to window of implantation timing improve pregnancy rates with assisted reproductive technology (ART). Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139(SUPPL 1):96S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Simon C, Gomez C, Cabanillas S, Vladimirov IK, Castillon G, Giles J, et al. In vitro fertilization with personalized blastocyst transfer versus frozen or fresh blastocyst transfer: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(3):e56–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Combs JC, O’Brien JE, Devine K, Healy MW, Jahandideh S, DeCherney AH, et al. Endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) for patients with PGT-A normal frozen embryo transfers (FET): a retrospective analysis. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(3):e424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.08.1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Selvaraj P, Selvaraj K, Sivakumar M, Pathy R, Balakrishnan S. Endometrial receptivity analysis in recurrent implantation failure: a prospective study comparing benefits in own versus donor cycles. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(SUPPL 1):i335.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Doyle N, Jahandideh S, Hill MJ, Widra EA, Levy M, Devine K. A randomized controlled trial comparing live birth from single euploid frozen blastocyst transfer using standardized timing versus timing by endometrial receptivity analysis. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(3):e101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.07.283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bamford T, Polson D, Lowe P, Easter C, Coomarasamy A. Endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) and microbiome testing for recurrent implantation failure (RIF): a matched case control study. Hum Reprod. 2022;37:i94–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac106.P-350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Clemente-Císcar M, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Jimenez-Almazan J, Bahceci M, Banker M, et al. Endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) using a next generation sequencing (NGS) predictor improves reproductive outcome in recurrent implantation failure (RIF) patients when compared to ERA arrays. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:i8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/33.Supplement_1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Li Y. The role of the endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) in patients with non-recurrent implantation failure in the Chinese population. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(3):e307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.07.827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bergin K, Eliner Y, Duvall DW Jr, Elguero S, Penzias AS, Sakkas D, et al. The use of propensity score matching to evaluate the endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) in euploid frozen embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(3):e102–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bergin K, Eliner Y, Vaughan DA, Sakkas D, Duvall DW, Elguero S, et al. Use of propensity score matching to assess the endometrial receptivity assay (ERA) in optimizing embryo transfer outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(3):e290–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.08.799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Royster GD, Anderson R. A retrospective cohort study on the usefulness of endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) prior to a gestational carriers’ (GC) first euploid frozen embryo transfer (FET). Hum Reprod. 2022;37:i391. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac106.P-422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Teles G, Lacordia R, Bonetti T, Lorenzon-Ojea AR, Motta E. Is endometrial receptivity array (ERA) screening relevant to increase pregnancy rates in patients with failed IVF cycles? Hum Reprod. 2018;33:342–342.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hombalegowda RB, Ziegler W. Evaluating the role of endometrial receptivity array (era) in patients with first frozen embryo transfers (FET). Fertil Steril. 2020;113(4 SUPPL):e39–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Riestenberg C, Kroener L, Ching K, Ambartsumyan G. Routine endometrial receptivity array in first embryo transfer cycles does not improve live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(3 SUPPL):e281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Arikan G, Turan V, Yanik M, Kadi AK, Kafkasli A. Personalized embryo transfer pET after endometrial receptivity array (ERA) in patients with repeated implantation failure — personal experience. J Turkish German Gynecol Assoc. 2016;17:S181.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Martinez F, Raquel Neves A, Devesa M, Garcia-Martinez S, Rodriguez I, Coroleu B. What is the clinical impact of the endometrial receptivity array in PGT-A and oocyte donation cycles? Fertil Steril. 2019;112(3):e164–e164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Luna M, Alkon T, Hernandez-Nieto C, Cassis-Bendeck D, Sandler B. Evaluating the clinical utility of endometrial receptivity analysis test in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod. 2020;35:I318–I318.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Simon C, Vladimirov IK, Castillon Cortes G, Ortega I, Cabanillas S, Vidal C, et al. Prospective, randomized study of the endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) test in the infertility work-up to guide personalized embryo transfer versus fresh transfer or deferred embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):e46–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jia Y, Sha YL, Qiu Z, Guo YH, Tan AX, Huang Y, et al. Endometrial receptivity analysis for personalized embryo transfer in patients with recurrent implantation failure: a retrospective analysis of a Chinese cohort. Hum Reprod. 2021;36:278–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Arikan G, Findikli N, Yagmur E, Karlikaya G, Gultomruk M, Bahceci M. Personolized embryo transfer (pET) after Endometrial receptivity array (ERA) in patients with recurrent implantation failure—an observational study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:268–268.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nct. Frozen blastocyst transfer using conventional timing versus timing by endometrial receptivity analysis. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03558399.2018.

  40. Nct. The clinical efficiency of ERA in Chinese RIF patients. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04497558.2020.

  41. ChiCtr. Effect of individualized embryo transfer based on endometrial receptivity test on clinical outcome of embryo implantation in patients with preimplantation genetic testing: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial. https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ChiCTR2100049841.2021.

  42. ChiCtr. Efficacy of the endometrial receptivity testing for recurrent implantation failure in patients with euploid embryo transfers. https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ChiCTR2100049041.2021.

  43. Cozzolino M, Diaz-Gimeno P, Pellicer A, Garrido N. Evaluation of the endometrial receptivity assay and the preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy in overcoming recurrent implantation failure. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(12):2989–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01948-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Jia Y, Dong YJ, Sha YL, Cai SC, Diao LH, Qiu Z, et al. Effectiveness comparison between endometrial receptivity array, immune profiling and the combination in treating patients with multiple implantation failure. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2022;87(3):e13513. https://doi.org/10.1111/aji.13513.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Amin J Sr, Patel R, JayeshAmin G, Gomedhikam J, Surakala S, Kota M. Personalized embryo transfer outcomes in recurrent implantation failure patients following endometrial receptivity array with pre-implantation genetic testing. Cureus. 2022;14(6):e26248. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.26248.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Bassil R, Casper R, Samara N, Hsieh TB, Barzilay E, Orvieto R, et al. Does the endometrial receptivity array really provide personalized embryo transfer? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(7):1301–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1190-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Doyle N, Combs JC, Jahandideh S, Wilkinson V, Devine K, O’Brien JE. Live birth after transfer of a single euploid vitrified-warmed blastocyst according to standard timing vs. timing as recommended by endometrial receptivity analysis. Fertil Steril. 2022;118(2):314–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.05.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fodina V, Dudorova A, Erenpreiss J. Evaluation of embryo aneuploidy (PGT-A) and endometrial receptivity (ERA) testing in patients with recurrent implantation failure in ICSI cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2021;37(S1):17–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2021.2006466.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Neves AR, Devesa M, Martinez F, Garcia-Martinez S, Rodriguez I, Polyzos NP, et al. What is the clinical impact of the endometrial receptivity array in PGT-A and oocyte donation cycles? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(9):1901–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01535-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Ohara Y, Matsubayashi H, Suzuki Y, Takaya Y, Yamaguchi K, Doshida M, et al. Clinical relevance of a newly developed endometrial receptivity test for patients with recurrent implantation failure in Japan. Reprod Med Biol. 2022;21(1):e12444. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12444.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Liu Z, Liu X, Wang M, Zhao H, He S, Lai S, et al. The clinical efficacy of personalized embryo transfer guided by the endometrial receptivity array/analysis on IVF/ICSI outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Physiol. 2022;13: 841437. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.841437.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Díaz-Gimeno P, Gómez E, Fernández-Sánchez M, Carranza F, et al. The endometrial receptivity array for diagnosis and personalized embryo transfer as a treatment for patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):818–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Tan J, Kan A, Hitkari J, Taylor B, Tallon N, Warraich G, et al. The role of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) in patients who have failed euploid embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(4):683–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1112-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Saxtorph MH, Hallager T, Persson G, Petersen KB, Eriksen JO, Larsen LG, et al. Assessing endometrial receptivity after recurrent implantation failure: a prospective controlled cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41(6):998–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.08.015.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ruiz Alonso M, Díaz-Gimeno P, Gómez E, Rincón-Bertolín A, Vladimirov Y, Garrido N, et al. Clinical efficiency of embryo transfer performed in receptive vs non-receptive endometrium diagnosed by the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) test. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):e292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Yeh JS, Steward RG, Dude AM, Shah AA, Goldfarb JM, Muasher SJ. Pregnancy rates in donor oocyte cycles compared to similar autologous in vitro fertilization cycles: an analysis of 26,457 fresh cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(2):399–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.04.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ma S, Peng Y, Hu L, Wang X, Xiong Y, Tang Y, et al. Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2022;20(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-022-00899-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Maziotis E, Tsioulou P, Grigoriadis S, Rapani A, et al. PGT-A: who and when? Α systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(8):1939–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02227-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Godiwala P, Makhijani R, Bartolucci A, Grow D, Nulsen J, Benadiva C, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after frozen-thawed embryo transfer using letrozole ovulation induction, natural, or programmed cycles. Fertil Steril. 2022;118(4):690–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.06.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Erden M, Polat M, Mumusoglu S, Ozbek IY, Dere GO, Sokmensuer LK, et al. Vitrified–warmed blastocyst transfer timing related to LH surge in true natural cycle and its impact on ongoing pregnancy rates. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;45(3):440–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.04.018.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bartels CB, Ditrio L, Grow DR, O’Sullivan DM, Benadiva CA, Engmann L, et al. The window is wide: flexible timing for vitrified–warmed embryo transfer in natural cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;39(2):241–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, People’s Republic of China

    Rong Luo, Jiahui Wang & Yi Liu

  2. Department of Reproductive Medicine, Zhongda Hospital Affiliated to Southeast University, 87 Dingjiaqiao Rd, Nanjing, 210009, People’s Republic of China

    Tao Shen, Xia Zhao & Yuanjiao Liang

Authors
  1. Rong Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiahui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yi Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tao Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xia Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuanjiao Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuanjiao Liang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luo, R., Wang, J., Liu, Y. et al. Personalized versus standard frozen-thawed embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 40, 719–734 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02710-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02710-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation