[1] Weissman A, Gotlieb L, Casper RF. The detrimental effect of increased endometrial thickness on implantation and pregnancy rates and outcome in an in vitro fertilization program [J]. Fertil Steril,1999, 71(1): 147-9. [2] Basir GS, O WS, So WWK, et al. Evaluation ofcycle-to-cycle variation of endometrial responsiveness using transvaginal sonography in women undergoing assisted reproduction [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol,2002, 19(5): 484-9. [3] Schild RL, Knobloch C, Dom C, et al. Endometrial receptivity in an in vitro fertilization program as assessed by spiral artery blood flow, endometrial thickness, endometrial volume, and uterine artery blood flow [J]. Fertil Steril, 2001, 75(2): 361-6. [4] Damon VB, Bessai K, Gregor J. Einsatz der sonographie bei der implantation[J]. Zentralbl Gynakol, 2001, 123(6): 340-3. [5] Puerto B, Creus M, Carmona F, et al. Ultrasonography as a predictor of embryo implantation after in vitro fertilization: a controlled study [J]. Fertil Steril, 2003, 79(4): 1015-22. [6] Bassil S. Changes in endometrial thickness, width, length and pattern in predicting pregnancy outcome during ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2001,18(3): 258- 63. [7] Syrop CH, Dawson JD, Husman KJ, et al. Ovarian volume may predict assisted reproductive outcomes better than follicle stimulating hormone concentration on day 3 [J]. Hum Reprod, 1999,14(7): 1752-6. |