Search for other papers by Sarah Simko in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Kelly N Wright in
Google Scholar
PubMed
effects on patients’ quality of life and fertility. Diagnosis is unfortunately often delayed, with an average delay of approximately 7 years, which can be detrimental to the early treatment of endometriosis to reduce pain and stresses on mental and
The cost-effectiveness of surgical excision of colorectal endometriosis compared to ART treatment trajectory (TOSCA study) in the management of colorectal endometriosis and subfertility
Study protocol for a multicentre prospective patient preference trial in the Netherlands
Nederlandse Endometriose Kliniek, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by R de Koning in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by A E P Cantineau in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by K van der Tuuk in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by B De Bie in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by H Groen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by M E van den Akker-van Marle in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by A W Nap in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by J W M Maas in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by F W Jansen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by A R H Twijnstra in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Nederlandse Endometriose Kliniek, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by M D Blikkendaal in
Google Scholar
PubMed
included. Healthcare resource use (i.e. gynaecology visits, fertility specialist visits, visits an emergency room, hospitalisation, ambulance care, medication use) will be obtained from patients’ medical files. Healthcare utilisation will be evaluated using
Reproductive Biology Unit, Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
Search for other papers by Alex Polyakov in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Reproductive Biology Unit, Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
Search for other papers by Genia Rozen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction The field of fertility preservation (FP) for oncology patients has evolved significantly in recent years, offering new possibilities for individuals with life-threatening illnesses. We commend Jones et al. (2023) for their
Search for other papers by Anna Lange-Consiglio in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Emanuele Capra in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Noemi Monferini in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Simone Canesi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Giampaolo Bosi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marina Cretich in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Roberto Frigerio in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Valentina Galbiati in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Federica Bertuzzo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Francesco Cobalchini in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Fausto Cremonesi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bianca Gasparrini in
Google Scholar
PubMed
. 2003 ), with a proportion of high-merit bulls failing to give full-term pregnancies ( Parkinson 2004 ). There are some studies that demonstrated links between the paternal environment, fertility, and fecundity ( Lane et al. 2014 , Braun et al. 2017
Search for other papers by Sarah Lensen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sarah Armstrong in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Emily Vaughan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Lucy Caughey in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michelle Peate in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Cynthia Farquhar in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Allan Pacey in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Adam Balen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department for Health, University of Bath Honorary Research Fellow, Bath Spa University, UK
Search for other papers by Elaine Wainwright in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-based medicine in fertility care: tensions between commercialisation and knowledge standardisation . Sociology of Health and Illness 43 2015 – 2030 . ( https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13381 ) Perrotta M & Hamper J 2021 The crafting of hope
Search for other papers by Jennifer Dabel in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Clinical Andrology, Centre of Reproductive Medicine and Andrology, Muenster, Germany
Search for other papers by Florian Schneider in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Joachim Wistuba in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sabine Kliesch in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Stefan Schlatt in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nina Neuhaus in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction Fertility preservation is recommended for patients who are at risk of infertility due to disease or gonadotoxic treatment. After the onset of puberty and initiation of spermatogenesis, cryopreservation of sperm can be offered as a
Search for other papers by Jason Mak in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mathew Leonardi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by George Condous in
Google Scholar
PubMed
justified and whether a negative diagnostic laparoscopy is useful. In this article, we will argue that diagnostic laparoscopy is safe, irreplaceable and a valuable part of the care of women and individuals assigned females at birth with chronic pelvic pain
Search for other papers by Jack Wilkinson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Katie Stocking in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction It is hopefully not too controversial to suggest that fertility interventions should be robustly tested before they are introduced into routine practice. In the absence of robust testing, it cannot be known whether treatment
Fertility Centre, Lanka Hospitals Corporation Plc, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Search for other papers by Madara S B Ralapanawe in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sugandika Lakmali Gajaweera in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nishendra Karunaratne in
Google Scholar
PubMed
NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Search for other papers by Malcolm James Price in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pedro Melo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Arri Coomarasamy in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ioannis Gallos in
Google Scholar
PubMed
result in reduced fertility ( Kirkpatrick et al. 2010 ). In humans, polymorphisms are also up to five times more common in couples with infertility compared to the general population ( Xu et al. 2016 ). The presence of polymorphism affects
Search for other papers by Evangeline R Walker in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Search for other papers by Mollie McGrane in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Search for other papers by John D Aplin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, Division of Developmental Biology and Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Search for other papers by Daniel R Brison in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Maternal and Fetal Health Research Centre, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Search for other papers by Peter T Ruane in
Google Scholar
PubMed
ES Care AS & Hull ML 2022 Immune determinants of endometrial receptivity: a biological perspective . Fertility and Sterility 117 1107 – 1120 . ( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.04.023 ) Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored PCOS Consensus