Current role of infertility traditional treatment versus the new assisted reproductive techniques

Authors

  • Carlos Morán
  • Raquel Huerta
  • José Ignacio Madero

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.710

Keywords:

Infertility, levels of attention in infertility, study of the infertile couple

Abstract

The prevalence of infertility has been increasing in recent years, but the medical services to treat these problems are not available for most of the infertile couples. The prognosis for fertility is important to know the therapeutic ability of each service, and to select the couples that could be treated in a primary level or to send them to higher levels of reproductive technology is available only for a small population sector. In general, the managed-care plans do not pay directly the infertility treatments, but they are covering in a veiled fashion some therapeutic procedures for fertility.

Author Biographies

Carlos Morán

Division of Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, U.S.A

Unidad de Investigación en Medicina Reproductiva, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, México D.F., México.

Raquel Huerta

Unidad de Investigación en Medicina Reproductiva, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, México D.F., México.

Universidad de Guanajuato, León, Guanajuato, México.

José Ignacio Madero

Medifertil. Programa de Medicina Reproductiva, Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia.

References

Mosher WD, Pratt WF. Fecundity and infertility in the United States, 1965-1988. Advance data from vital and health statistics No. 192. Hyattsville, Md. PHS 1990; 91: 1250.

Wilcox LS, Mosher WD. Use of infertility services in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 122-127.

Morán C, García-Hernández E, Carranza-Lira S, Cortés A, Varón J, Merino G, Bermúdez JA. Prognosis for fertility analyzing different variables in men and women. Arch Androl 1996; 36: 197-204.

Collins JA, Wrixon W, Janes LB, Wilson EH. Treatment- independent pregnancy among infertile couples. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 1201-1206.

Check JH, Lurie D, Callan C, Baker A, Benfer K. Comparison of the cumulative probability of pregnancy after in vitro fertilization- embryo transfer by infertility factor and age. Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 257-261.

Jones HW, Toner JP. The infertile couple. N Engl J Med 1993; 23: 1710-1715.

Knochenhauer ES, Azziz R. Evaluation of infertility: a cost effective approach. Ref Gynecol Obstet 1997; 5: 315-320.

Karande YC, Kom A, Morris R, Rao R, Balin M, Rinehart J, Dohn K, Gleicher N. Prospective randomized trial comparing the outcome and cost of in vitro fertilization with that of a traditional treatment algorithm as first-line therapy for couples with infertility. Fertil Steril 1999; 71: 468-475.

Bates GW, Bates SR. The economics of infertility: developing an infertility managed-care plan. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174: 1200-1207.

Wentz AC. News of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinologists. Fertility News 1992; 26: 4.

How to Cite

1.
Morán C, Huerta R, Madero JI. Current role of infertility traditional treatment versus the new assisted reproductive techniques. Rev. colomb. obstet. ginecol. [Internet]. 2000 Mar. 30 [cited 2024 May 18];51(1):29-32. Available from: https://revista.fecolsog.org/index.php/rcog/article/view/710

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2000-03-30

Issue

Section

Topic Review
QR Code

Altmetric

Article metrics
Abstract views
Galley vies
PDF Views
HTML views
Other views
Crossref Cited-by logo

Some similar items: