Friedler, S., Schenker, J. G., Herman, A. and Lewin, A.. The role of ultrasonography in the evaluation of endometrial receptivity following assisted reproductive treatments: a critical review. Human Reproduction Update 1996;2(4):323–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kasius, A., Smit, J. G., Torrance, H. L., Eijkemans, M. J., Mol, B. W, Opmeer, B. C. and Broekmans, F. J. Endometrial thickness and pregnancy rates after IVF: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update 2014;20(4):530–41.Google Scholar

Dain, L., Bider, D., Levron, J., Zinchenko, V., Westler, S. and Dirnfeld, M.. Thin endometrium in donor oocyte recipients: Enigma or obstacle for implantation? Fertility and Sterility 2013;100(5):1289–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gingold, J. A., Lee, J. A., Rodriguez-Purata, J., Whitehouse, M. C., Sandler, B., Grunfeld, L., Mukherjee, T. and Copperman, A. B.. Endometrial pattern, but not endometrial thickness, affects implantation rates in euploid embryo transfers. Fertility and Sterility 2015;104(3):620–8.Google Scholar

Kodaman, P. H. and Arici, A.. Intra-uterine adhesions and fertility outcome: How to optimize success? Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2007 Jun;19(3):207–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Casper, R. F.. “It’s time to pay attention to the endometrium.” Fertility and Sterility 2011;96(3):519–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Garcia-Velasco, J. A., Acevedo, B., Alvarez, C., Alvarez, M., Bellver, J., Fontes, J., Landeras, J., Manau, D., Martinez, F., Muñoz, E. and Robles, A.. Strategies to manage refractory endometrium: State of the art in 2016. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2016;32(5):474–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Scioscia, M., Lamanna, G., Lorusso, F., Serrati, G., Selvaggi, L. E. and Depalo, R.. Characterization of endometrial growth in proliferative and early luteal phase in IVF cycles. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2009;18:73–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Check, J. H., Cohen, R., Wilson, C., Corley, D. and Dietterich, C.. Very thin endometria in the late proliferative phase is more associated with poor pregnancy rates following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation than graduated estradiol regimens used for frozen embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility 2014;101(2):e21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Groenewoud, E. R., Cantineau, A. E., Kollen, B. J., Macklon, N. S. and Cohlen, B. J.. What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen–thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update 2013;dmt030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wright, K. P., Guibert, J., Weitzen, S., Davy, C., Fauque, P. and Olivennes, F.. Artificial versus stimulated cycles for endometrial preparation prior to frozen–thawed embryo transfer. Reprod. Biomed. Online 2006;13(3):321–5.Google Scholar

Galliano, D., Bellver, J., Díaz-García, C., Simón, C. and Pellicer, A.. ART and uterine pathology: how relevant is the maternal side for implantation? Human Reproduction Update 2014;dmu047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar