Pronuclear morphology evaluation in in vitro fertilization (IVF) / intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: a retrospective clinical review

[1] Hardarson T(2011)The Istambul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting Hum Reprod 26 1270-1283

[2] Ahlström A(2012)Non-invasive metabolomic profiling of Day 2 and 5 embryo culture medium: a prospective randomized trial Hum Reprod 27 89-96

[3] Rogberg L(2012)Embryo assessment strategies and their validation for clinical use: a critical analysis of methodology Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 24 141-150

[4] Botros L(2003)Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection Fertil Steril 80 341-349

[5] Hillensjö T(2003)Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development Reprod Biomed Online 6 201-214

[6] Westlander G(2005)Relationship between pre-embryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) and standard day 2 or 3 embryo morphology with regard to assisted reproductive technique outcomes Fertil Steril 84 900-909

[7] Uyar A(2006)Comparison of pronuclear zygote morphology and early cleavage status of zygotes as additional criteria in the selection of day 3 embryos: a randomized study Fertil Steril 85 347-352

[8] Seli E(2007)Oocyte euploidy, pronuclear zygote morphology and embryo chromosomal complement Hum Reprod 22 241-249

[9] Gianaroli L(2008)Zygote score and status 1 or 2 days after cleavage and assisted reproduction outcome Int J Gynaecol Obstet 101 16-20

[10] Magli MC(2009)Pronuclear morphology differs between women more than 38 and women less than 30 years of age Reprod Biomed Online 18 367-373

[1] Hardarson T(2011)The Istambul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting Hum Reprod 26 1270-1283

[2] Ahlström A(2012)Non-invasive metabolomic profiling of Day 2 and 5 embryo culture medium: a prospective randomized trial Hum Reprod 27 89-96

[3] Rogberg L(2012)Embryo assessment strategies and their validation for clinical use: a critical analysis of methodology Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 24 141-150

[4] Botros L(2003)Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection Fertil Steril 80 341-349

[5] Hillensjö T(2003)Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development Reprod Biomed Online 6 201-214

[6] Westlander G(2005)Relationship between pre-embryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) and standard day 2 or 3 embryo morphology with regard to assisted reproductive technique outcomes Fertil Steril 84 900-909

[7] Uyar A(2006)Comparison of pronuclear zygote morphology and early cleavage status of zygotes as additional criteria in the selection of day 3 embryos: a randomized study Fertil Steril 85 347-352

[8] Seli E(2007)Oocyte euploidy, pronuclear zygote morphology and embryo chromosomal complement Hum Reprod 22 241-249

[9] Gianaroli L(2008)Zygote score and status 1 or 2 days after cleavage and assisted reproduction outcome Int J Gynaecol Obstet 101 16-20

[10] Magli MC(2009)Pronuclear morphology differs between women more than 38 and women less than 30 years of age Reprod Biomed Online 18 367-373