Shared IVF among female couples: clinical outcomes of the Reception of Oocytes from the Partner (ROPA) method

Pedro Brandão, Brent Monseur, Monseur B, Pedro Melo, Manuel Gonçalves-Henriques, Gonçalves-Henriques M, Nathan Ceschin, Sérgio Reis-Soares, Ceschin N, Reis-Soares S, Ricardo Sousa-Santos, Sousa-Santos R, José Bellver, Bellver J
Reproductive BioMedicine Online · 2023 · vol. 47(4) , pp. 103284 · doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.103284 · PMID:37542844
other OA: green CC-BY-NC-4.0
🔓 Open OA copy Full text JSON View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-04 ⓘ

A Spanish case series analyzing ROPA treatments from 2011 to 2020 found that approximately half of cycles resulted in live births, with endometriosis identified as a fertility factor in 2.9% of donor patients.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-23 · read from full text ⓘ

The provided text does not contain a research paper but rather an error message from a website security system called Anubis. This system utilizes a Proof-of-Work scheme to protect against AI scraping and requires modern JavaScript features, noting that plugins like JShelter may cause access issues. The content is purely technical documentation regarding web server protection and does not include any clinical data, study population, or biomedical findings. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the population undergoing the ROPA (Reception of Oocytes from Partner) method and what are the outcomes of the technique? DESIGN: Case series of all ROPA treatments carried out between 2011 and 2020 in 18 fertility clinics in Spain. Demographic characteristics, cycle features, laboratory and clinical outcomes, and the intentions regarding the disposition of surplus embryos were analysed. RESULTS: Donor patients were on average 3.5 years younger than recipients (P = 0.001). No significant differences were found in body mass index or anti-Müllerian hormone. In 13% of cases, fertility issues were found: poor ovarian reserve (6.8%); endometriosis (2.9%); and polycystic ovary syndrome (2.2%). Including cases of advanced age (38 years old or older), more than one-half of couples (53.6%) had some condition that could affect fertility. Mean number of mature oocytes per cycle was 10 (+/- 5.7), and fertilization rate was 74.5% (+/- 18.8). Mean number of viable embryos was 3.2 (+/- 1.5). Surplus embryos were cryopreserved in 50.4% of cycles. Outcomes after embryo transfers from ROPA, and subsequent frozen cycles were as follows: positive pregnancy test (61.0%), clinical pregnancy (54.1%) and miscarriage rate (16.1%). Other outcomes were live birth rate per embryo transfer (44.7%); multiple pregnancy rate (5.4%); per cumulative ROPA cycle (48.6%); and per couple (61.6%). CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the ROPA method are reassuring. About one-half of the ROPA cycles resulted in a live birth and one-quarter of the cycles had surplus embryos after achieving a live birth. Main neonatal outcomes were also reassuring.
Full text 1,068 characters · extracted from oa-html · click to expand
Making sure you're not a bot! Loading... You are seeing this because the administrator of this website has set up Anubis to protect the server against the scourge of AI companies aggressively scraping websites. This can and does cause downtime for the websites, which makes their resources inaccessible for everyone. Anubis is a compromise. Anubis uses a Proof-of-Work scheme in the vein of Hashcash, a proposed proof-of-work scheme for reducing email spam. The idea is that at individual scales the additional load is ignorable, but at mass scraper levels it adds up and makes scraping much more expensive. Ultimately, this is a placeholder solution so that more time can be spent on fingerprinting and identifying headless browsers (EG: via how they do font rendering) so that the challenge proof of work page doesn't need to be presented to users that are much more likely to be legitimate. Please note that Anubis requires the use of modern JavaScript features that plugins like JShelter will disable. Please disable JShelter or other such plugins for this domain.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-html ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer Embryo Transfer

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-09-27T09:11:36.575535+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-09-28T06:12:23.667090+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-14T19:30:52.867331+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-4.0 · commercial use OK · attribution required
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine