Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

You searched for:"Ricardo Melo Marinho"

We found (1) results for your search.
  • Artigos Originais

    Comparison between three protocols for ovulation Induction in cycles of intrauterine insemination and related endometrial thickness and pregnancy rate achieved in each protocol

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2005;27(1):7-11

    Summary

    Artigos Originais

    Comparison between three protocols for ovulation Induction in cycles of intrauterine insemination and related endometrial thickness and pregnancy rate achieved in each protocol

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2005;27(1):7-11

    DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032005000100003

    Views3

    PURPOSE: to compare pregnancy rates and mean endometrial thickness obtained with three protocols for induction of ovulation in cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI). METHODS: one hundred and ten IUI cycles were retrospectively evaluated in the study, divided into three groups, according to the used ovulation induction protocols: 100 mg clomiphene citrate (CC) on days 3 to 7 of the cycle (CC group, n=24), 100 mg/day CC on days 3 to 7 of the cycle + 75 IU/day of human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG) on days 3, 5 and 7 of the cycle (CC+hMG group, n=29), and 75 IU/day of hMG on days 3 to 8 of the cycle (hMG group, n=57). Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t test to compare the means and the c² test to compare the rates. Results were considered statistically significant at p<0.05. RESULTS: the patients' average age at the onset of the first cycle was 2340 years (mean age, 33.3 years). There were no statistically significant differences between groups. The mean endometrial thickness on the day of the human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) administration was significantly higher in the hMG group (10.2±0.2 mm), as compared with the CC and CC+hMG group (7.9±0.4 and 8.7±0.2 mm, respectively, p<0.001). The overall clinical pregnancy rate was 18.2%, and there were no statistically significant differences between the groups (CC group=12.5%; CC+hMG group=24.1% and hMG group=19.3%). CONCLUSION: the results indicate higher mean endometrial thickness in the hMG group as compared with the CC group and the CC+hMG group. There were no significant differences between clinical pregnancy rates obtained with each protocol (CC, CC+hMG and hMG).

    See more

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Arigos Originais
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE