2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.07.915
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative Echogencity of Various Soft-Tipped Embryo Transfer Catheters

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…• Types of catheter: In 1999, a survey of clinicians rated the choice of catheter as the third most important variable in ET (Kovacs, 1999). Some studies have evaluated the relationship between the type of the ET catheter and the outcomes of ART (Abou-Setta et al, 2005;Buckett 2006;Coroleu et al, 2006;Karande et al, 2002;Meriano et al, 2000;Schiewe et al, 2005). Two systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating firmness of the ET catheter concluded that soft ET catheters result in a significantly higher PR as compared with firm catheters (Abou-Setta et al, 2005;Buckett, 2006).…”
Section: Standardizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…• Types of catheter: In 1999, a survey of clinicians rated the choice of catheter as the third most important variable in ET (Kovacs, 1999). Some studies have evaluated the relationship between the type of the ET catheter and the outcomes of ART (Abou-Setta et al, 2005;Buckett 2006;Coroleu et al, 2006;Karande et al, 2002;Meriano et al, 2000;Schiewe et al, 2005). Two systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating firmness of the ET catheter concluded that soft ET catheters result in a significantly higher PR as compared with firm catheters (Abou-Setta et al, 2005;Buckett, 2006).…”
Section: Standardizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When comparing the types of catheters for better ET, soft and echogenic catheters are the obvious recommendation, as they facilitate the procedure (Abou-Setta et al, 2005;Allahbadia et al, 2010;Buckett, 2006;Coroleu et al, 2006;Karande et al, 2002;Schiewe et al, 2005).…”
Section: Standardizationmentioning
confidence: 99%