Optimizing natural fertility: a committee opinion

This report reviews mechanisms and techniques to optimize fertility in the fertile couple/individual.

Volume 107, Issue 1, Pages 52-58

Authors:

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility

Abstract:

This Committee Opinion provides practitioners with suggestions for optimizing the likelihood of achieving pregnancy in couples/individuals attempting conception who have no evidence of infertility. This document replaces the document of the same name previously published in 2013, Fertil Steril 2013;100(3):631-7.


Read the full text here.

Comments

Go to the profile of Dwight Hooper
about 5 years ago
Fantastic work! This is clearly the best article I've read this year! It has wonderfully practical information that is immediately clinically useful. It offers either science or consensus to support useful recommendations. Further it confirms much of the practice that I've held over years, yet dispels other (fertility) practices that had been passed down over the years without support. I'd love to see other committee opinions on other topics that we see as frequently as we do fertility concerns. Thanks, this helps greatly.
Go to the profile of Helen Koo
almost 3 years ago

Are there data that support comparing the size of the effects on female infertility of the factors in Table 1 (e.g., smoking, drinking) to that of women's age (e.g., 37 or older)?  That is, is older age a larger risk factor for women's infertility than the modifiable factors in Table 1?  Thank you!

Go to the profile of Sarah
8 months ago

This article was very well-written and helpful for practicing clinicians. I believe there is an error in Table 1. The authors cite the Clark paper stating that women with a BMI < 19 take 4-fold longer to conceive, however the Clark paper only studied women with obesity. The Clark paper does not even discuss women with low BMIs or who are underweight in the introduction/discussion. As, such I believe this citation is inaccurate. If they meant to cite a different paper, I think that should be updated, so readers can access the primary data behind the reported statistic.