Live Birth

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Men's BMI was unrelated to live birth rate per embryo transfer (p-trend=0.42) in the overall combined IVF/ICSI analysis, and this result was unchanged after further adjustment for women's BMI.

Effect: null; p-trend=0.42

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD

Live birth rate per embryo transfer trended higher in the low-dose FSH group (9/15, 60%) compared with the high-dose group (2/11, 18%, P=0.051), and ROC curve analysis validated 150 IU as the optimal

Effect: adverse; LBR 2/11 (18%) HD vs 9/15 (60%) LD