ライフサイエンスコーパス: live birth rate

1 sole diagnostic method (despite a favorable live-birth rate).

2 mbryo transfers was associated with a higher live birth rate.

3 nificantly improve semen quality or couples' live birth rates.

4 reduce multiple gestations while maintaining live birth rates.

5 ian stimulation was associated with improved live birth rates.

6 Primary outcomes were pregnancy and live birth rates.

7 vidual women in order to estimate cumulative live-birth rates.

8 7.8 years of follow-up (risk, 2.13 per 1000 live births; rate, 2.63/10000 child-years).

9 29 years and 30 to 34 years of age, maximum live-birth rates (43 % and 36%, respectively) were achie

10 The cumulative prognosis-adjusted live-birth rate across all cycles continued to increase

11 -birth rate per IVF cycle and the cumulative live-birth rates across all cycles in all women and by a

12 Overall, live birth rates after BC were significantly higher amon

13 ta for predicting singleton, twin, and total live birth rates after human embryo transfer.

14 going IVF, the cumulative prognosis-adjusted live-birth rate after 6 cycles was 65.3%, with variation

15 nts undergoing 14,248 cycles, the cumulative live-birth rate after 6 cycles was 72% (95% confidence i

16 Primary outcome was cumulative live-birth rate after up to three transfers.

17 Live-birth rates after treatment with assisted reproduct

18 re ART treatment were associated with higher live birth rates among a population exposed to folic aci

19 ether levothyroxine treatment would increase live-birth rates among euthyroid women who had thyroid p

20 Live-birth rates among older women are lower than those

21 We estimated cumulative live-birth rates among patients undergoing their first f

22 The primary outcome was the live birth rate and secondary outcomes included gestatio

23 most severe metabolic complications, lowest live birth rates and highest PCOS remission rate; PCOS w

24 Secondary outcomes included the live-birth rate and late pregnancy complications.

25 ection trial (NCT03673592) showed equivalent live-birth rates and miscarriage rates across 484 euploi

26 y lupus during pregnancy on gestational age, live birth rate, and small for gestational age babies.

27 Our results indicate that live-birth rates approaching natural fecundity can be ac

28 ice for women with low prognosis in terms of live birth rate compared with a freeze-all strategy.

29 Live-birth rates declined with increasing maternal age a

30 The cumulative live-birth rate decreased with increasing age, and the a

31 ents), graft survival, and uterus transplant live birth rate (defined as live birth per transplanted

32 Live birth rate following fresh embryo transfer vs cryop

33 ally feasible and was associated with a high live birth rate following successful graft survival.

34 ogous oocytes, data have demonstrated higher live birth rates following cryopreserved-thawed embryo t

35 For women aged 40 to 42 years, the live-birth rate for the first cycle was 12.3% (95% CI, 1

36 In all women, the live-birth rate for the first cycle was 29.5% (95% CI, 2

37 r than 40 years using their own oocytes, the live-birth rate for the first cycle was 32.3% (95% CI, 3

38 Secondary pregnancy outcomes were live birth rate, gestation, very preterm birth (<32 week

39 Pregnancy outcomes including live birth rates, gestational age, and proportion of bab

40 The live birth rate in the Canadian cohort (86.4%) was signi

41 tudy showed that Zishen Yutai Pill increased live birth rates in women aged 35-42 undergoing IVF, wit

42 ections do not increase ongoing pregnancy or live-birth rates in women with unexplained RPL.

43 dless of whether embryos were cryopreserved, live-birth rates increased if more than 2 embryos were t

44 potential of preimplantation embryos and the live birth rate, it might represent a novel means to imp

45 The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR) following oocyte donor cycles.

46 ancy rate (CPR), secondary outcomes included live birth rate (LBR), biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR),

47 rate (IR), ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR), and live birth rate (LBR).

48 d reproductive technology (ART) face reduced live birth rates (LBR) and remain a major clinical chall

49 llowing a 50% clinical pregnancy rate with a live birth rate of 42% overall.

50 is translated into an adjusted difference in live birth rates of 26% (95% CI: 10%, 48%; P = 0.02).

51 tensity and pregnancy outcomes emerged, with live birth rates of 48% in women dialyzed </=20 hours pe

52 , P(superiority) = 0.003) (1-year cumulative live birth rates of 75.7% versus 68.9%).

53 continued due to poor prognosis and having a live-birth rate of 0 had they continued.

54 es achieving a cumulative prognosis-adjusted live-birth rate of 31.5% (95% CI, 29.7%-33.3%).

55 les achieved a cumulative prognosis-adjusted live-birth rate of 68.4% (95% CI, 67.8%-68.9%).

56 gle blastocyst transfer increases cumulative live-birth rates over single cleavage-stage transfer.

57 interest were the pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rate per cycle.

58 The overall live birth rate per embryo transfer was similar to the U

59 The live birth rates per embryo varied from as high as 43% f

60 Live-birth rate per IVF cycle and the cumulative live-bi

61 of 552 women in the water group (28.1%) had live births (rate ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.64; P<0

62 The primary outcome was live birth rate; secondary outcomes were clinical pregna

63 stimates assumed that these women would have live-birth rates similar to those for women continuing t

64 number of embryos needed to achieve maximum live- birth rates varied by age and whether extra embryo

65 Live birth rate was 19.2% and lowest average SPTRX3 leve

66 The live birth rate was 37.2%.

67 The cumulative live birth rate was lower in the frozen embryo transfer

68 However, the live birth rate was lower only for those in the first qu

69 es; moderate certainty), but their effect on live birth rates was unclear (RR, 1.15 [CI, 0.95 to 1.40

70 The live-birth rate was 22.5% (47 of 209 subjects) in the cl

71 The live-birth rate was 37.4% (176 of 470 women) in the levo

72 The live birth rates were 33.7% (175/520) in the time-lapse

73 Live-birth rates were 74.8% in blastocyst-stage group ve

74 The live-birth rates were 86.0% (185 of 215 women) and 86.7%

75 gnosis-adjusted, and conservative cumulative live-birth rates were estimated, reflecting 0%, 30%, and

76 Among women 35 years of age and older, live-birth rates were lower overall and regardless of wh

77 ervative and optimal estimates of cumulative live-birth rates were, respectively, 42.7% and 65.3% for

78 birth risk but was associated with increased live-birth rates when fewer embryos were transferred.

79 ovarian stimulation and a negative impact on live birth rates with fresh embryo transfer.

80 e, the conservative and optimal estimates of live-birth rates with autologous oocytes had declined fr