title: Mild ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: one perspective from the USA.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To provide a perspective regarding mild ovarian stimulation, taking into account particular issues relevant in the United States
  
  
  METHODS
  Literature review and editorial commentary
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF has some proven and some theoretical advantages over conventional stimulation, such as lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and lower cost per fresh IVF cycle. However, cumulative live birth rate, including transfers from fresh and frozen embryos, is likely to be lower with mild stimulation. The cost-effectiveness of mild stimulation IVF in the United States has not been established.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Mild ovarian stimulation is an appropriate option to consider for certain patient groups or based on patient preference. However, significant potential disadvantages limit its widespread acceptability for patients in the United States at this time.
authors: Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 900 Welch Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. vlbaker@stanford.edu
authors: Valerie L
authors: VL
authors: Baker
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D015925:Cryopreservation; D004624:Embryo Transfer; D005260:Female; D005307:Fertilization in Vitro; D006801:Humans; D016471:Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome / Q000473:pathology; D010062:Ovulation Induction; D011247:Pregnancy; D014481:United States
references: Fertil Steril. 2011 Oct;96(4):865-8
references: 21872229
references: Fertil Steril. 2011 Jun 30;95(8):2449-55
references: 21550037
references: Hum Reprod. 2007 Apr;22(4):980-8
references: 17204525
references: Fertil Steril. 2010 Sep;94(4):1399-1404
references: 19591989
references: Fertil Steril. 2013 Jan;99(1):47-62.e1
references: 23095142
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Apr;109(4):967-77
references: 17400861
references: Contraception. 2012 Dec;86(6):757-62
references: 22895097
references: Fertil Steril. 2010 Sep;94(4):1287-1291
references: 19815197
references: Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 Mar;22(3):232-48
references: 21269884
references: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003 Jan;82(1):48-52
references: 12580839
references: Semin Reprod Med. 2012 Apr;30(2):77-83
references: 22549707
references: Fertil Steril. 2012 Apr;97(4):886-9
references: 22265036
references: Reprod Biomed Online. 2007 Aug;15(2):134-48
references: 17697488
references: Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Aug;286(2):505-10
references: 22546950
references: Hum Reprod Update. 2009 Jan-Feb;15(1):5-12
references: 19091754
references: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Oct;146(2):138-48
references: 19577836
references: Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Mar;15(2):84-90
references: 15036255
references: Reproduction. 2010 Jan;139(1):23-34
references: 19710204
references: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2013 Jan 15;304(2):R69-72
references: 23100030
references: Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011 Jun 21;9:82
references: 21693025
references: Lancet. 2007 Mar 3;369(9563):743-749
references: 17336650
references: Hum Reprod. 2008 Sep;23(9):2050-5
references: 18544578
references: Hum Reprod. 2010 Nov;25(11):2678-84
references: 20858698
references: Hum Reprod Update. 2009 Jan-Feb;15(1):13-29
references: 19091755
references: Hum Reprod. 2007 Nov;22(11):2801-4
references: 17855409
references: Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012 Apr 27;10:35
references: 22541043
references: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012 May;29(5):381-90
references: 22415246
references: Fertil Steril. 2008 Sep;90(3):537-45
references: 17953961
references: N Engl J Med. 2012 Jun 28;366(26):2483-91
references: 22738098
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Dec;1034:245-51
references: 15731316