The selection of embryos is a key for the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF). However, automatic quality assessment on human IVF embryos with optical microscope images is still challenging. In this study, we developed a clinical consensus-compliant deep learning approach, named Esava (Embryo Segmentation and Viability Assessment), to quantitatively evaluate the development of IVF embryos using optical microscope images. In total 551 optical microscope images of human IVF embryos of day-2 to day-3 were collected, preprocessed, and annotated. Using the Faster R-CNN model as baseline, our Esava model was constructed, refined, trained, and validated for precise and robust blastomere detection. A novel algorithm Crowd-NMS was proposed and employed in Esava to enhance the object detection and to precisely quantify the embryonic cells and their size uniformity. Additionally, an innovative GrabCut-based unsupervised module was integrated for the segmentation of blastomeres and embryos. Independently tested on 94 embryo images for blastomere detection, Esava obtained the high rates of 0.9940, 0.9121, and 0.9531 for precision, recall, and mAP respectively, and gained significant advances compared with previous computational methods. Intraclass correlation coefficients indicated the consistency between Esava and three experienced embryologists. Another test on 51 extra images demonstrated that Esava surpassed other tools significantly, achieving the highest average precision 0.9025. Moreover, it also accurately identified the borders of blastomeres with mIoU over 0.88 on the independent testing dataset. Esava is compliant with the Istanbul clinical consensus and compatible to senior embryologists. Taken together, Esava improves the accuracy and efficiency of embryonic development assessment with optical microscope images.

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).

In Italy the fertility rate is very low, and an increasing number of patients are infertile and require treatments. The Italian Law concerning the safety of patient care, and the professional liability of health professionals, indicates that health professionals must comply with the recommendations set out in the guidelines developed by public and private bodies and institutions, as well as scientific societies and technical-scientific associations of the health professions, except for specific cases. Unfortunately, no guideline for the diagnosis and the management of infertility is currently available in Italy. In 2019, the Italian Society of Human Reproduction pointed out the need to produce Italian guidelines and subsequently approved the establishment of a multidisciplinary and multiprofessional working group (MMWG) to develop such a guideline. The MMWG was representative of 5 scientific societies, one national federation of professional orders, 3 citizens\' and patients\' associations, 5 professions (including lawyer, biologist, doctor, midwife, and psychologist), and 3 medical specialties (including medical genetics, obstetrics and gynecology, and urology). The MMWG chose to adapt a high-quality guideline to the Italian context instead of developing one from scratch. Using the Italian version of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II scoring system, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines were selected and adapted to the Italian context. The document was improved upon by incorporating comments and suggestions where needed. This study presents the process of adaptation and discusses the pros and cons of the often-neglected choice of adapting rather than developing new guidelines.

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.).

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer (US-GET) is a widely performed procedure, but standards for the best practice are not available.
OBJECTIVE: This document aims to provide an overview of technical aspects of US-GET after considering the published data and including the preparation for the embryo transfer (ET) procedure, the actual procedure, the post-procedure care, associated pathologies, complications and risks, quality assurance and practitioners\' performance.
METHODS: A literature search for evidence on key aspects of the ET procedure was carried out from database inception to November 2021. Selected papers (n = 359) relevant to the topic were analysed by the authors. The following key points were considered in the papers: whether ultrasound (US) practice standards were explained, to what extent the ET technique was described and whether complications or incidents and how to prevent such events were reported. In the end, 89 papers could be used to support the recommendations in this document, which focused on transabdominal US-GET.
RESULTS: The relevant papers found in the literature search were included in the current document and described according to the topic in three main sections: requirements and preparations prior to ET, the ET procedure and training and competence for ET. Recommendations are provided on preparations prior to ET, equipment and materials, ET technique, possible risks and complications, training and competence. Specific aspects of the laboratory procedures are covered, in particular the different loading techniques and their potential impact on the final outcomes. Potential future developments and research priorities regarding the ET technique are also outlined.
CONCLUSIONS: Many topics were not covered in the literature review and some recommendations were based on expert opinions and are not necessarily evidence based.
CONCLUSIONS: ET is the last procedural step in an ART treatment and is a crucial step towards achieving a pregnancy and live birth. The current paper set out to bring together the recent developments considering all aspects of ET, especially emphasizing US quality imaging. There are still many questions needing answers, and these can be subject of future research.
BACKGROUND: No funding. A.D.A. has received royalties from CRC Press and personal honorarium from Cook, Ferring and Cooper Surgical. The other co-authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the oocyte potential to develop to blastocyst in Rotterdam consensus PCOS in women with hyper-responses requiring freeze-all embryos.
METHODS: Retrospective, single-academic center, cohort study of 205 patients who underwent freeze-all antagonist IVF cycles for OHSS risk between 2013 and 2019. Women in the PCOS group (n = 88) were diagnosed per the 2003 Rotterdam criteria. Control patients (n = 122) had no evidence of hyperandrogenism or menstrual disturbance. Data was compared by t-tests, chi-squared tests, or multivariate logistic regression (SPSS). Frozen blastocysts were Gardner\'s grade BB or better.
RESULTS: There was no difference in terms of number of oocytes collected (PCOS vs non-PCOS 27.7 ± 9.4 vs 25.9 ± 8.2, p = 0.157), number of MII (20.7 ± 8.0 vs 19.1 ± 6.6, p = 0.130), number of 2PN fertilized (15.6 ± 7.4 vs 14.4 ± 5.9, p = 0.220), and number of frozen blastocysts (7.8 ± 4.9 vs 7.1 ± 3.8, p = 0.272). In addition, fertilization rates (74 ± 17% vs 75 ± 17%, p = 0.730), blastulation rates per 2PN (51 ± 25% vs 51 ± 25%, p = 0.869), and blastulation rates per mature oocytes (37 ± 18% vs 37 ± 15%, p = 0.984) were all comparable between PCOS and controls, respectively. Moreover, there was no difference when comparing PCOS and controls in pregnancy rates (45/81 vs 77/122, p = 0.28) and clinical pregnancy rates (34/81 vs 54/122, p = 0.75), respectively. Multivariate logistic regression controlling for confounders failed to alter these results.
CONCLUSIONS: PCOS subjects do not seem to have altered oocyte potential as measured by number of MII oocytes collected, fertilization, and blastulation rates when compared to high-responder controls, with similar magnitude of stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the websites of Brazilian fertility clinics included in the 11th Report of the National Embryo Production System (SisEmbrio, 2017) for compliance with the 2004 American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Brazilian Medical Council (Conselho Federal de Medicina, CFM) guidelines for advertising.
METHODS: We performed an online evaluation of the websites of clinics listed in the 11th SisEmbrio report based on criteria from the 2004 ASRM guidelines (publication of success rates, live birth rates (LBR), method of LBR calculation, success rates by age range and diagnosis, experimental/investigational nature of procedures and the practice of comparison marketing) and CFM guidelines (clinic director name and register visible on the website; no prices displayed, no photos of patients nor success stories with patient identification).
RESULTS: A total of 161 SiSEmbrio-registered clinics were evaluated: 153 (95.0%) had functional websites, and only seven were public clinics. Social media presence was as follows: 87 (54.03%) were on WhatsApp; 128 (79.5%) were on Facebook; and 122 (75.8%) were on Instagram. Seventy-five (46.6%) were on other social media platforms (YouTube, LinkedIn, and Twitter). Regarding CFM recommendations, 49 (30.4%) showed information of a registered director, 85 (52.8%) showed patient photos on their websites and/or social media accounts. Fifty-four clinics published success rates (33.5%) and 19 (11.8%) used their own data, whereas seven (4.3%) showed pregnancy rates by age. None reported LBR or advertised prices.
CONCLUSIONS: The information published online by Brazilian fertility clinics is heterogeneous in nature. A significant portion of the websites does not follow some of the ASRM and CFM guidelines for advertising.

There is moderate evidence that assisted hatching does not significantly improve live birth rates in fresh assisted reproductive technology cycles and insufficient evidence for the benefit of assisted hatching in patients with poor prognosis or undergoing frozen embryo transfer cycles. This document replaces the document of the same name published in 2014.

OBJECTIVE: To test the validity of the Vienna consensus laboratory key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor the outcome of treatments involving women of different age ranges.
METHODS: The retrospective cohort study included 862 complete IVF/ICSI cycles carried out between January 2014 and May 2021. All embryos of each cycle cohort were subject to extended culture. The overall population was divided into two groups according to female age: the Vienna consensus (≤ 39 years) and older female age (≥ 40 years). We compared outcomes of a selection of the Vienna performance indicators (PIs) and KPIs, with a focus on measures relevant to embryo cleavage and blastocyst formation. A possible association between total good blastocyst development rate (TGBDR) and cumulative clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) was also assessed.
RESULTS: No differences were observed in fertilization and embryo cleavage KPIs between the Vienna consensus and the older female age group (standard IVF fertilization, 67.2 vs. 67.3; ICSI fertilization, 72.3 vs. 75.3; day 2 development, 57.6% vs 58.7%; day 3 development, 52.4% vs. 50.7%, respectively). TGBDR was lower in the older female age group (45.5% vs. 33.4% p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated female age as a factor independently associated with TGBDR. Clinical outcomes significantly decreased with increasing female age.
CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that, while most laboratory outcome measures are reliably applicable irrespective of female age, KPIs describing extended embryo culture should be fine-tuned in consideration of older female age.

Is a symptom questionnaire as per the French IVF guidelines adequate for screening patients during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Patients planning IVF from June 2020 to February 2021 were included in the study. In compliance with French IVF guidelines, all patients fever-free on the day of oocyte retrieval were screened for risk of COVID-19 by completing a symptom questionnaire after being counselled regarding the importance of a COVID-19-free medical practice. Patients with IVF planned between June and September 2020 only completed the questionnaire (group 1), while those planning IVF after September 2020 also underwent the RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (group 2). Cycle cancellation rates between groups were compared. Group 1 patients consented for follicular fluid testing for SARS-CoV-2 and an interview after cycle completion to determine COVID-19 exposure during the 6 months before and after retrieval.
Cycle cancellation rates for groups 1 and 2 were 0% (0/214) versus 1.4% (8/577), respectively, (P = 0.116). All 183 follicular fluid samples from group 1 were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Of 171 patients interviewed post-IVF, 16 (93.4%) developed COVID-19 symptoms or a positive real-time PCR (RT-PCR) RT-PCR test, but none within 2 months pre- or post-retrieval.
These results provide reassurance that, consistent with the COVID-19 French IVF guidelines, use of a symptom questionnaire is effective in screening patients planning to undergo IVF. Failure to detect viral RNA in any follicular fluid sample does not negate the possibility that follicular fluid is a viral reservoir. However, the findings provide reassurance that the follicular environment in this study\'s carefully screened population was COVID-free.