OBJECTIVE: Which clinical and embryological factors should be considered to apply double embryo transfer (DET) instead of elective single embryo transfer (eSET)?
CONCLUSIONS: No clinical or embryological factor per se justifies a recommendation of DET instead of eSET in IVF/ICSI.
BACKGROUND: DET is correlated with a higher rate of multiple pregnancy, leading to a subsequent increase in complications for both mother and babies. These complications include preterm birth, low birthweight, and other perinatal adverse outcomes. To mitigate the risks associated with multiple pregnancy, eSET is recommended by international and national professional organizations as the preferred approach in ART.
METHODS: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. Literature searches were performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases, and relevant papers published up to May 2023, written in English, were included. Live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and multiple pregnancy rate were considered as critical outcomes.
METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached within the Guideline Development Group (GDG). A stakeholder review was organized after the guideline draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.
RESULTS: The guideline provides 35 recommendations on the medical and non-medical risks associated with multiple pregnancies and on the clinical and embryological factors to be considered when deciding on the number of embryos to transfer. These recommendations include 25 evidence-based recommendations, of which 24 were formulated as strong recommendations and one as conditional, and 10 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, seven (28%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (three recommendations; 12%), or very low-quality evidence (15 recommendations; 60%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based research, the guideline also clearly mentions recommendations for future studies.
CONCLUSIONS: The guideline assessed different factors one by one based on existing evidence. However, in real life, clinicians\' decisions are based on several prognostic factors related to each patient\'s case. Furthermore, the evidence from randomized controlled trials is too scarce to formulate high-quality evidence-based recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: The guideline provides health professionals with clear advice on best practice in the decision-making process during IVF/ICSI, based on the best evidence currently available, and recommendations on relevant information that should be communicated to patients. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field.
BACKGROUND: The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, the literature searches, and the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. DPB declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter. She is a member of ESHRE EXCO, and the Mediterranean Society for reproductive medicine and the president of the Croatian Society for Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine. CDG is the past Chair of the ESHRE EIM Consortium and a paid deputy member of the Editorial board of Human Reproduction. IR declared receiving reimbursement from ESHRE and EDCD for attending meetings. She holds an unpaid leadership role in OBBCSSR, ECDC Sohonet, and AER. KAR-W declared receiving grants for clinical researchers and funding provision to the institution from the Swedish Cancer Society (200170F), the Senior Clinical Investigator Award, Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder (Dnr: 201313), Stockholm County Council FoU (FoUI-953912) and Karolinska Institutet (Dnr 2020-01963), NovoNordisk, Merck and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. She received consulting fees from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Welfare. She received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, and Organon for chairmanship and lectures. She received support from Organon for attending meetings. She participated in advisory boards for Merck, Nordic countries, and Ferring. She declared receiving time-lapse equipment and grants with payment to institution for pre-clinical research from Merck pharmaceuticals and from Ferring. SS-R received research funding from Roche Diagnostics, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeo-Richter. He received consulting fees from Organon/MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Merck Serono. He declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. He received support for attending Gedeon Richter meetings and participated in the Data Safety Monitoring Board of the T-TRANSPORT trial. He is the Deputy of ESHRE SQART special interest group. He holds stock options in IVI Lisboa and received equipment and other services from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. KT declared receiving payment for honoraria for giving lectures from Merck Serono and Organon. She is member of the safety advisory board of EDQM. She holds a leadership role in the ICCBBA board of directors. ZV received reimbursement from ESHRE for attending meetings. She also received research grants from ESHRE and Juhani Aaltonen Foundation. She is the coordinator of EHSRE SQART special interest group. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
CONCLUSIONS: This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose (full disclaimer available at https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal).

What is the recommended management for couples presenting with unexplained infertility (UI), based on the best available evidence in the literature?
The evidence-based guideline on UI makes 52 recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of UI.
UI is diagnosed in the absence of any abnormalities of the female and male reproductive systems after \'standard\' investigations. However, a consensual standardization of the diagnostic work-up is still lacking. The management of UI is traditionally empirical. The efficacy, safety, costs, and risks of treatment options have not been subjected to robust evaluation.
The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for ESHRE guidelines. Following formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches, and assessments were undertaken. Papers written in English and published up to 24 October 2022 were evaluated.
Based on the available evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline development group (GDG). Following stakeholder review of an initial draft, the final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.
This guideline aims to help clinicians provide the best care for couples with UI. As UI is a diagnosis of exclusion, the guideline outlined the basic diagnostic procedures that couples should/could undergo during an infertility work-up, and explored the need for additional tests. The first-line treatment for couples with UI was deemed to be IUI in combination with ovarian stimulation. The place of additional and alternative options for treatment of UI was also evaluated. The GDG made 52 recommendations on diagnosis and treatment for couples with UI. The GDG formulated 40 evidence-based recommendations-of which 29 were formulated as strong recommendations and 11 as weak-10 good practice points and two research only recommendations. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, one by moderate-quality evidence, nine by low-quality evidence, and 31 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in UI, a list of research recommendations was provided.
Most additional diagnostic tests and interventions in couples with UI have not been subjected to robust evaluation. For a large proportion of these tests and treatments, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required, and the results of future studies may result in the current recommendations being revised.
The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in the care of couples with UI, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. The full guideline and a patient leaflet are available in www.eshre.eu/guideline/UI.
The guideline was developed by ESHRE, who funded the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline in collaboration with the Monash University led Australian NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women\'s Health in Reproductive Life (CREWHIRL). The guideline group members did not receive any financial incentives; all work was provided voluntarily. D.R. reports honoraria from IBSA and Novo Nordisk. B.A. reports speakers\' fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter, Organon and Intas Pharma; is part of the advisory board for Organon Turkey and president of the Turkish Society of Reproductive Medicine. S.B. reports speakers\' fees from Merck, Organon, Ferring, the Ostetric and Gynaecological Society of Singapore and the Taiwanese Society for Reproductive Medicine; editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press; is part of the METAFOR and CAPE trials data monitoring committee. E.B. reports research grants from Roche diagnostics, Gedeon Richter and IBSA; speaker\'s fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Gedeon Richter, IBSA; E.B. is also a part of an Advisory Board of Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Merck, Abbott and Gedeon Richter. M.M. reports consulting fees from Mojo Fertility Ltd. R.J.N. reports research grant from Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); consulting fees from Flinders Fertility Adelaide, VinMec Hospital Hanoi Vietnam; speaker\'s fees from Merck Australia, Cadilla Pharma India, Ferring Australia; chair clinical advisory committee Westmead Fertility and research institute MyDuc Hospital Vietnam. T.P. is a part of the Research Council of Finland and reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Novo Nordics and Sigrid Juselius foundation; consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics and organon; speaker\'s fees from Gedeon Richter, Roche, Exeltis, Organon, Ferring and Korento patient organization; is a part of NFOG, AE-PCOS society and several Finnish associations. S.S.R. reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Organon, Theramex; consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD and Organon; speaker\'s fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD/Organon, Besins, Theramex, Gedeon Richter; travel support from Gedeon Richter; S.S.R. is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board of TTRANSPORT and deputy of the ESHRE Special Interest Group on Safety and Quality in ART; stock or stock options from IVI Lisboa, Clínica de Reprodução assistida Lda; equipment/medical writing/gifts from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. S.K.S. reports speakers\' fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Pharmasure. HRV reports consulting and travel fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The other authors have nothing to disclose.
This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline. Part II outlines the appropriate management of the male in an infertile couple. Medical therapies, surgical techniques, as well as use of intrauterine insemination (IUI)/in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are covered to allow for optimal patient management. Please refer to Part I for discussion on evaluation of the infertile male and discussion of relevant health conditions that are associated with male infertility.
The Emergency Care Research Institute Evidence-based Practice Center team searched PubMed®, Embase®, and Medline from January 2000 through May 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. (Table 1) This summary is being simultaneously published in Fertility and Sterility and The Journal of Urology.
This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding management of male infertility. Such recommendations are summarized in the associated algorithm. (Figure 1) CONCLUSION: Male contributions to infertility are prevalent, and specific treatment as well as assisted reproductive techniques are effective at managing male infertility. This document will undergo additional literature reviews and updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future treatment options continues to expand.

In attempting to formulate potential WHO guidelines for the diagnosis of male infertility, the Evidence Synthesis Group noted a paucity of high-quality data on which to base key recommendations. As a result, a number of authors suggested that key areas of research/evidence gaps should be identified, so that appropriate funding and policy actions could be undertaken to help address key questions.
The overall objective of this Consensus workshop was to clarify current knowledge and deficits in clinical laboratory andrology, so that clear paths for future development could be navigated.
Following a detailed literature review, each author, prior to the face-to-face meeting, prepared a summary of their topic and submitted a PowerPoint presentation. The topics covered were (a) Diagnostic testing in male fertility and infertility, (b) Male fertility/infertility in the modern world, (c) Clinical management of male infertility, and (d) The overuse of ICSI. At the meeting in Cairo on February 18, 2019, the evidence was presented and discussed and a series of consensus points agreed.
The paper presents a background and summary of the evidence relating to these four topics and addresses key points of significance. Following discussion of the evidence, a total of 36 consensus points were agreed.
The Discussion section presents areas where there was further debate and key areas that were highlighted during the day.
The consensus points provide clear statements of evidence gaps and/or potential future research areas/topics. Appropriate funding streams addressing these can be prioritized and consequently, in the short and medium term, answers provided. By using this strategic approach, andrology can make the rapid progress necessary to address key scientific, clinical, and societal challenges that face our discipline now and in the near future.

Controversy exists regarding surgical management of endometriomas in infertile women before in vitro fertilization (IVF) because growing evidence indicates that surgery may impair the ovarian response. The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare surgical and expectant management of endometriomas regarding IVF outcomes. Prospective and retrospective controlled studies were found via the Cochrane Library, Embase, and MEDLINE databases. Thirteen studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 12 observational studies, N = 2878) were pooled, and similar live birth rates were observed in the surgically and expectantly managed groups (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.22; p = .98). The clinical pregnancy rates (odds ratio = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.66-1.05; p = .86), the number of mature oocytes retrieved, and the miscarriage rates were not statistically different between study groups. However, the total number of oocytes retrieved was lower in the surgery group (mean difference = -1.51; 95% CI, -2.60 to -0.43; p = .02). Findings suggest that surgical management of endometriomas before IVF therapy yields similar live birth rates as expectant management. However, future properly designed randomized controlled trials are warranted.

This proceedings report presents the outcomes from an international workshop supported by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine, designed to establish consensus on definitions and recommended values for Indicators for the assisted reproductive technology (ART) laboratory. Minimum performance-level values (\'competency\') and aspirational (\'benchmark\') values were recommended for a total of 19 Indicators, including 12 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), five Performance Indicators (PIs), and two Reference Indicators (RIs).

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to gather information on the impact of Alpha/European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) consensus regarding oocytes with aggregates of smooth endoplasmic reticulum (SERa) on in vitro fertilization outcome. In particular, we investigated if patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and whose oocytes are discarded due to SERa have a higher chance of embryo transfer cancellation compared to patients without SERa oocytes.
METHODS: This is a nested case-control study drawn from the cohort of women referring for in vitro fertilization with ICSI. Cases were patients showing at least one oocyte with SERa at the time of injection. Controls were subsequent patients showing no SERa oocytes and matched ratio 1:1 for age, clinical indication to in vitro fertilization (IVF), and body mass index. The main outcome was the rate of embryo transfer cancellation.
RESULTS: The percentage of women experiencing a transfer cancellation (absence of suitable oocytes or viable embryos) in their ICSI cycle were significantly higher in cases (18 %) compared to controls (8 %) (p = 0.02); however, adjusted odds ratio for FSH and number of SERa oocytes, of follicles, of retrieved oocytes, and of inseminated oocytes were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that the exclusion of SERa oocytes from ICSI cycles causes an increased frequency of transfer cancellation. This effect is mostly due to the reduced number of available oocytes after exclusion of SERa oocytes.

Reports on the influence of semen parameters on natural or assisted pregnancy are contradictory, suggesting that the many confounding variables which contribute to outcome have not been taken into account. However, it is possible to derive some consensus for both natural and assisted conception by focussing on studies which use WHO-recommended semen analysis on relatively large populations, applying appropriate statistics and accounting for \'female factors\'. The concentration of progressively motile sperm has consistently been shown to be the most predictive factor with regard to outcome. Around 64% of studies suggest that a reasonable chance of success with artificial insemination requires at least 5 × 10⁶ motile sperm and this is supported by the WHO\'s revised reference range for natural conception. Sperm morphology remains controversial, with a lack of standardisation across centres, the adoption of ever-stricter scoring criteria and changing reference values. Antisperm antibodies do not appear to influence outcome independently of sperm motility and agglutination. Sperm DNA damage appears to be related to sperm quality, embryo development and pregnancy loss, yet there remains no consensus on the best testing procedures, clinical reference values and how patients with an adverse result should be managed. In conclusion, laboratories should continue to focus on reducing the uncertainty and improving the quality of their basic semen analysis.

There is good evidence that fertilization and pregnancy rates are similar to IVF/ICSI with fresh oocytes when vitrified/warmed oocytes are used as part of IVF/ICSI for young women. Although data are limited, no increase in chromosomal abnormalities, birth defects, and developmental deficits has been reported in the offspring born from cryopreserved oocytes when compared to pregnancies from conventional IVF/ICSI and the general population. Evidence indicates that oocyte vitrification and warming should no longer be considered experimental. This document replaces the document last published in 2008 titled, \"Ovarian Tissue and Oocyte Cryopreservation,\" Fertil Steril 2008;90:S241-6.

Gestational surrogacy is currently banned in Singapore but is much debated. Some ethical guidelines and legislation for permitting gestational surrogacy in Singapore are proposed and discussed including: (i) review and approval of gestational surrogacy by the Ministry of Health on a case-by-case basis; (ii) stringent guidelines for gonadotrophin stimulation, IVF and ICSI procedures in \'traditional\' surrogacy; (iii) restriction of gestational surrogates to parous married women with stable family relationships; (iv) exclusion of foreign women from acting as gestational surrogates, except for close relatives of the recipient couple; (v) reimbursement and/or compensation of gestational surrogates based on the direct expenses model; (vi) exclusion of medical professionals from surrogate recruitment and reimbursement; (vii) the surrogacy contract must make it legally binding for the prospective recipient couple to accept the child, even if it is born with congenital deformities; (viii) stringent guidelines for combining surrogacy with egg donation from a third woman, who is neither the social nor gestational mother. Policymakers in Singapore should conduct a public referendum on the legalization of gestational surrogacy and actively consult the views of healthcare professionals, religious and community leaders, as well as the general public, before reaching any decision.