Explore the vast range of titles available.

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) refers to cases in which women have had three failed in vitro fertilization (IVF) attempts with good quality embryos. The definition should also take advanced maternal age and embryo stage into consideration. The failure of embryo implantation can be a consequence of uterine, male, or embryo factors, or the specific type of IVF protocol. These cases should be investigated to determine the most likely etiologies of the condition, as this is a complex problem with several variables. There are multiple risk factors for recurrent implantation failure including advanced maternal age, smoking status of both parents, elevated body mass index, and stress levels. Immunological factors such as cytokine levels and presence of specific autoantibodies should be examined, as well as any infectious organisms in the uterus leading to chronic endometritis. Uterine pathologies such as polyps and myomas as well as congenital anatomical anomalies should be ruled out. Sperm analysis, pre-implantation genetic screening and endometrial receptivity should be considered and evaluated, and IVF protocols should be tailored to specific patients or patient populations. Treatment approaches should be directed toward individual patient cases. In addition, we suggest considering a new initial step in approach to patients with RIF, individualized planned activities to activate the brain's reward system in attempt to improve immunological balance in the body.

Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist's profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocele that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.

Providing the latest evidence-based information on etiology, evaluation and treatment, this unique text provides an in-depth, comprehensive discussion of the epidemiology, genetic and endocrinologic factors and medical and surgical management of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).

Pregnancy loss can be defined as a loss before either 20 or 24 weeks of gestation (based on the first day of the last menstrual period) or the loss of an embryo or fetus less than 400 g in weight if the gestation age is unknown. Approximately 23 million pregnancy losses occur worldwide every year, equating to 15–20% of all clinically recognized pregnancies. A pregnancy loss is usually associated with physical consequences, such as early pregnancy bleeding ranging in severity from spotting to hemorrhage. However, it can also be associated with profound psychological distress, which can be felt by both partners and may include feelings of denial, shock, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide. Progesterone plays a key part in the maintenance of a pregnancy, and progesterone supplementation has been assessed as a preventative measure in patients at increased risk of experiencing a pregnancy loss. The primary objective of this piece is to assess the evidence for various progestogen formulations in the treatment of threatened and recurrent pregnancy loss, postulating that an optimal treatment plan would preferably include a validated psychological support tool as an adjunct to appropriate pharmacological treatment.

Cesarean section (CS) has been consistently associated with susceptibility to autism spectrum disorder (ASD), however, the underlying mechanism for this association remains vague. Here, we studied various pre-peri-and-neonatal factors among 347 children with ASD, 117 children with other developmental delays (DD), and 2226 age, sex and ethnicity matched controls. We found that CS is significantly associated with an increased risk of ASD but not DD (p = 0.019 and p = 0.540 respectively). Furthermore, we show that only CS performed with general anesthesia (GA) elevated the risk of ASD with no significant difference between indicated and non-indicated surgeries (aOR = 1.537; 95% CI 1.026–2.302, and aOR = 1.692; 95% CI 1.057–2.709, p diff  = 0.865). We therefore suggest that exposure to GA during CS may explain the association between CS and ASD.

Background: Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is defined as the loss of two or more pregnancies. Several treatment options are available, including progesterone, which is one of the few treatments that improve live birth rates in RPL patients. Objective: To compare the live birth rates, medical and obstetric characteristics, and RPL evaluation results of women with and without progesterone treatment. These women attended the RPL clinic at Soroka University Medical Center. Methods: A retrospective cohort study based on 866 patients was conducted. The patients were divided into two groups and examined: the dydrogesterone treatment group consisting of 509 women and a group of 357 patients who did not receive the treatment. All the patients had a subsequent (index) pregnancy. Results: The two groups were not statistically different in terms of their demographic and clinical characteristics or evaluation results. In a univariate analysis, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups in terms of live birth rates (80.6% vs. 84%; p-value = 0.209). In a multivariate logistic analysis adjusted for maternal age, the ratio of pregnancy losses to the number of pregnancies, other administered treatments, antiphospholipid syndrome, and body mass index, dydrogesterone treatment was found to be independently associated with a higher rate of live births than the control group (adjusted OR = 1.592; CI 95% 1.051–2.413; p-value = 0.028). Conclusions: Progesterone treatment is associated with an increased live birth rate in RPL patients. Studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to strengthen these results.